Download PDF
The Journal of Hip Surgery
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1781435
Original Article

Hip Resurfacing in the Setting of Retained Proximal Femoral Instrumentation or Complex Deformity

Ajay Premkumar
1   Department of Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Renee Ren
1   Department of Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Jonathan Spaan 
1   Department of Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Edwin P. Su
1   Department of Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the setting of significant retained femoral instrumentation or complex proximal femoral deformity may be challenging and published reports of THA in this setting reveal sobering results. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to THA and may avoid complex hardware removal or deformity correction at the time of hip arthroplasty. Twenty-three patients who underwent elective HRA in the setting of significant proximal femoral deformity and/or retained femoral instrumentation were identified from a prospectively maintained registry. Pre- and postoperative Lower Extremity Assessment Scores (LEAS), modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR) scores, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain levels, and metal ion levels were obtained. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up was 5.03 (2.07 − 7.91) years, and no patients had undergone revision surgery at their latest follow-up. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) surgical duration was 94.40 (12.00) minutes, and postoperative length of stay was 1.74 (1.80) days. There were no intraoperative complications, and all patients were discharged home. Median (IQR) postoperative LEAS, VAS pain scale, mHHS, and HOOS, JR scores were 13.00 (9.25 − 13.00), 2.50 (0.75 − 10.00), 92.60 (92.40 − 100.00), and 92.34 (85.26 − 100.00), respectively. Fourteen patients completed postoperative serum metal ion level testing at a mean (SD) of 4.24 (2.85) years, where cobalt and chromium levels were 1.22 (0.36) and 2.01 (0.80) parts per billion, respectively. HRA is a viable option for patients with significant proximal femoral deformity or retained instrumentation, and excellent results at mid-term follow-up can be achieved utilizing this strategy in this complex patient population.

Keywords

hip resurfacing arthroplasty - degenerative joint disease - hip arthroplasty - proximal femoral deformity - retained hardware


Publication History

Received: 19 March 2023

Accepted: 17 January 2024

Article published online:
12 March 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 (AAOS) AAoOS. American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR): 2021 Annual Report. 2021. Rosemont, IL:
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Crawford RW, Murray DW. Total hip replacement: indications for surgery and risk factors for failure. Ann Rheum Dis 1997; 56 (08) 455-457
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Woodcock J, Larson AN, Mabry TM, Stans AA. Do retained pediatric implants impact later total hip arthroplasty?. J Pediatr Orthop 2013; 33 (03) 339-344
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Yun A, Qutami M, Pasko KBD. Salvage of failed femoral neck fracture fixation with conversion total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach. Hip Pelvis 2020; 32 (04) 199-206
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Dietz MJ, Chase S, Burke DW, Kwon YM. Novel technique for removal of a broken intracortical screw during THA. Orthopedics 2013; 36 (11) 846-849
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Lu M, Phillips D. Total hip arthroplasty for posttraumatic conditions. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019; 27 (08) 275-285
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Haidukewych GJ, Berry DJ. Hip arthroplasty for salvage of failed treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (05) 899-904
    Google Scholar
  • 8 McKinley JC, Robinson CM. Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures with total hip arthroplasty: comparison of primary arthroplasty with early salvage arthroplasty after failed internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84 (11) 2010-2015
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Mabry TM, Prpa B, Haidukewych GJ, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Long-term results of total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture nonunion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (10) 2263-2267
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Mortazavi SM, , R Greenky M, Bican O, Kane P, Parvizi J, Hozack WJ. Total hip arthroplasty after prior surgical treatment of hip fracture is it always challenging?. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (01) 31-36
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Archibeck MJ, Carothers JT, Tripuraneni KR, White Jr RE. Total hip arthroplasty after failed internal fixation of proximal femoral fractures. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (01) 168-171
    Google Scholar
  • 12 DeHaan AM, Groat T, Priddy M. et al. Salvage hip arthroplasty after failed fixation of proximal femur fractures. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (05) 855-859
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Pui CM, Bostrom MP, Westrich GH. et al. Increased complication rate following conversion total hip arthroplasty after cephalomedullary fixation for intertrochanteric hip fractures: a multi-center study. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 45-47
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Hernandez NM, Chalmers BP, Perry KI, Berry DJ, Yuan BJ, Abdel MP. Total hip arthroplasty after in situ fixation of minimally displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (01) 144-148
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Jacofsky DJ, Haidukewych GJ, Zhang H, Sim FH. Complications and results of arthroplasty for salvage of failed treatment of malignant pathologic fractures of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (427) 52-56
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Clough EJ, Clough TM. Metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: where are we now?. J Orthop 2020; 23: 123-127
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Quesada MJ, Marker DR, Mont MA. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: advantages and disadvantages. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (7, Suppl): 69-73
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Su EP, Ho H, Bhal V. et al. Results of the first U.S. FDA-approved hip resurfacing device at 10-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021; 103 (14) 1303-1311
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Pritchett JW. Hip resurfacing in patients with severe osteoarthritis and blocked medullary canal. Hip Int 2018; DOI: 10.1177/1120700018778537.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Mont MA, McGrath MS, Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Marker DR, Delanois RE. Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing arthroplasty in the presence of extra-articular deformities or implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (Suppl. 03) 45-51
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Hart AJ, Sabah SA, Bandi AS. et al. Sensitivity and specificity of blood cobalt and chromium metal ions for predicting failure of metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (10) 1308-1313
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Maguire CM, Seyler TM, Jinnah RH, Ward WG. Hip resurfacing with retention of existing hardware - case report. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2011; 69 (Suppl. 01) S98-S102
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Su EP, Morgenstern R, Khan I, Gaillard MD, Gross TP. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty for end-stage arthritis caused by childhood hip disease. Hip Int 2020; 30 (05) 572-580
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Van Der Straeten C, De Smet KA. Current expert views on metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Consensus of the 6th advanced Hip resurfacing course, Ghent, Belgium, May 2014. Hip Int 2016; 26 (01) 1-7
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Van Der Straeten C, Van Quickenborne D, De Roest B, Calistri A, Victor J, De Smet K. Metal ion levels from well-functioning Birmingham hip resurfacings decline significantly at ten years. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (10) 1332-1338
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Heisel C, Kleinhans JA, Menge M, Kretzer JP. Ten different hip resurfacing systems: biomechanical analysis of design and material properties. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (04) 939-943
    Google Scholar