ACE Report Cover
Total hip replacement vs. hip resurfacing for patients with degenerative hip joint disease
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
ARTHROPLASTY
Total hip replacement vs. hip resurfacing for patients with degenerative hip joint disease .
Verified
This report has been verified by one or more authors of the original publication.

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2014;2(4):4 Bone Joint J. 2013 Nov 1;95-B(11):1464-73
Exclusive Author Interview

Dr. Vendittoli discusses total hip replacement versus hip resurfacing for the treatment of degenerative hip joint disease.

219 hips in 192 patients diagnosed with degenerative hip joint disease, were randomly assigned to treatment with either metal-on-metal hip resurfacing or total hip replacement. The purpose was to compare to two in terms of clinical benefits, metal ion levels, and radiographic outcomes over 8 years after treatment. The results of the study indicated that for young patients suffering from hip joint degeneration, both total hip replacement and hip resurfacing result in similar, improving clinical outcomes and revision rates approximately 8 years postoperatively. Osteolysis was observed more frequently with THR, while higher titanium levels were found in patients who received HR.


Detalles de la financiación de la publicación +
Financiación:
Industry funded
Patrocinador:
Zimmer
Conflictos:
Consultant

Riesgo de sesgo

6,5/10

Criterios de información

16/20

Índice de fragilidad

N/A

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

Was allocation adequately concealed?

Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?

Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?

Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?

Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?

Sí = 1

Incierto = 0,5

No relevante = 0

No = 0

La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.

4/4

Randomization

2/4

Outcome Measurements

4/4

Inclusion / Exclusion

2/4

Therapy Description

4/4

Statistics

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.

¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?

While total hip replacement (THR) has proven its effectiveness in elderly patients, its overall efficacy in young, active patients is still in question. The amount of patients undergoing THR has rapidly increased over the past decade, with a significant amount of this increase originating from younger male patients. Durability of THRs in younger patients has come into question in recent years, causing a shift in popularity back to metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing (HR). While there are a wide variety of benefits to HR, such as preservation of femoral neck, avoidance of femoral canal violation, and improvement of future revision surgery outcomes, the comparative efficacy of HR to THA in younger patients remains unknown.

¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?

How does metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compare to total hip replacement in terms of clinical benefits, metal ion levels, and radiographic outcomes approximately 8 years after treatment in patients with degenerative hip joint disease?

Características del estudio +
Población:
192 patients (n=219 hips), between the ages of 18 and 65 years, who were diagnosed with degenerative hip joint disease
Intervención:
Hip Resurfacing Group: Patients in this group received a hybrid Durom CoCr resurfacing implant (Zimmer). As this study is an extension, previous surgical technique, implants, and postoperative treatments were included in the previously published report (Mean age: 49.2 +/- 9.0 years) (n= 04, 93 completed clinical follow up, 40 analyzed for metal ion levels)
Comparación:
THR Group: Patients in this group received a CLS-Spotorno femoral stem and Allofit acetabular shell with a 28-mm Metasul chromium-cobalt bearing surface inlaid into polyethylene insert, along with a chromium-cobalt femoral head (Mean age: 51.0 +/- 8.6 years) (n=99, 88 completed clinical follow up, 22 analyzed for metal ion levels).
Resultados:
Outcomes assessed were: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Postel-Merle d'Aubigne (PMA) score, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, functional hop and step tests (asked to hop 10 times on operated limb, and climbing up and stepping down a 35 cm step with the operated limb 10 times, measured as very easy, easy, difficult, or impossible by patients), metal ion analysis and radiological outcomes (component positioning, component loosening).
Métodos:
RCT: Single-Center
Tiempo:
Approximately 8 years (Outcomes were assessed preoperatively, at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and, 1, 2, 5, and approximately 8 years (6.6 to 9.3))
¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?
  • At a mean follow up of 8 years, 4% (4 patients) of THR and 6% (6 patients) of HR were revised (p=0.569). Five patients in the hip resurfacing group experienced a collapse of the femoral head, while the 6th patient underwent revision due to early component migration. Of the 4 patients in the THR group, one revision was due to recurrent dislocation, two due to infection, and one due to traumatic peri-prosthetic femoral fracture (at 6 years).
  • No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding pain/discomfort at any of the measured sites (hip, groin, greater trochanter area, thigh, and buttocks; all p>0.05) for any follow-up . Six resurfacing patients compared to zero in the THR group complained of significant groin pain that lead to investigation or treatment (p=0.015). Two were for femoroacetabular impingement related pain, while the other four were for Brooker's grade 3 heterotopic ossification.
  • Squeaking was reported in two patients who received THR and none in the hip resurfacing group. Three hip resurfacing patients and five THR patients underwent re-operation without implant revision, which was not statistically different between the groups (p=0.428).
  • At final follow-up, mean UCLA score was significantly better in the hip resurfacing group (p=0.035). However, the proportion of patients performing high impact activity (UCLA activity score of 10) was similar (13.8% vs. 19.6% in the THR and hip resurfacing groups, respectively; p=0.301). Hop and step tests showed a trend that favoured hip resurfacing by final follow-up, but these findings did not reach statistical significance (p=0.055 and 0.066, respectively).
  • No difference in WOMAC or PMA scores were found at final-follow up between the groups (p=0.675 and 0.866 respectively), and no significant improvements were observed in either group from 2 years to final follow-up in either group for these outcomes.
  • By 5 year follow-up, Ti level was significant higher in the resurfacing group (2.4 ug/L in the hip resurfacing group vs. 1.6 ug/L in the THR group; p=0.006). No significant difference in Cr (2.1 vs. 1.4 ug/L; p=0.180), or Co levels (0.8 vs. 0.8 ug/L; p=0.614) were found between the groups.
  • At final follow-up, no loose acetabular components were found in either group. Two femoral resurfacing heads, when analyzed at final follow-up, were considered to be loose, and one case femoral neck narrowing > 10% was found. Progressive osteolysis occurred in 30 of 81 THRs (37%) and 2 of 83 hip resurfacings (2.4%) (p<0.001). Impingement between the femoral neck and metallic liner was observed in 5 patients in the THR group.
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?

At the average final follow-up of 8 years, no significant difference in revision rates or reoperations without revisions were found between the two groups. Mean UCLA scores were significantly higher in the hip resurfacing group, but similar WOMAC and PMA scores were found between the two by final follow-up. Osteolysis occurred significantly more often the total hip arthroplasty. At 5 year follow-up, mean cobalt and chromium levels were comparable between the groups, and titanium levels were significantly higher with hip resurfacing.

¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?

The results of this study indicate that in young patients suffering from hip joint degeneration, both total hip replacement and hip resurfacing result in similarly good clinical outcomes and revision rates approximately 8 years after treatment. Future survival analyses should be conducted if bone preservation in hip resurfacing translates to any favourable outcome over longer follow-up.

DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD

El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
Ha alcanzado su límite de vistas de 4 artículos gratuitos este mes

Acceda a OrtoEvidencia por tan sólo 1,99 $ a la semana.

Manténgase conectado con las últimas pruebas. Cancele en cualquier momento.
  • Valoraciones críticas de los últimos ensayos controlados aleatorizados de gran impacto y revisiones sistemáticas en ortopedia
  • Acceso al contenido del podcast OrthoEvidence, que incluye colaboraciones con el Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas con cirujanos reconocidos internacionalmente y mesas redondas sobre noticias y temas ortopédicos
  • Suscripción a The Pulse, un boletín quincenal basado en la evidencia y diseñado para ayudarle a tomar mejores decisiones clínicas
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bienvenido
¿Ha olvidado su contraseña?
Comience hoy mismo su prueba GRATUITA

Su cuenta estará afiliada a
e incluye acceso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
¿Olvidó su contraseña?

O
Compruebe su correo electrónico

Si existe una cuenta con la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada, se le enviará un correo electrónico para restablecer la contraseña. Si no ve el correo electrónico, compruebe su carpeta de correo no deseado o spam.

Si necesita más ayuda póngase en contacto con nuestro equipo de asistencia.

Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Traducir Informe ACE

OrthoEvidence utiliza un servicio de traducción de terceros para que el contenido sea accesible en varios idiomas. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque se hace todo lo posible para garantizar la exactitud, las traducciones no siempre son perfectas.

Cómo citar esto ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Total hip replacement vs. hip resurfacing for patients with degenerative hip joint disease. OE Journal. 2014;2(4):4. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/total-hip-replacement-vs-hip-resurfacing-for-patients-with-degenerative-hip-joint-disease

Copiar cita
Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Función de miembro Premium

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta Premium de OrthoEvidence.

Compartir ACE Report