Does commitment to rehabilitation influence clinical outcome of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether compliance and rehabilitative efforts were predictors of early clinical outcome of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was utilized to collect information from 147 resurfacing patients, who were operated on by a single surgeon, regarding their level of commitment to rehabilitation following surgery. Patients were followed for a mean of 52 months (range, 24 to 90 months). Clinical outcomes and functional capabilities were assessed utilizing the Harris hip objective rating system, the SF-12 Health Survey, and an eleven-point satisfaction score. A linear regression analysis was used to determine whether there was any correlation between the rehabilitation commitment scores and any of the outcome measures, and a multivariate regression model was used to control for potentially confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, an increased level of commitment to rehabilitation was positively correlated with each of the following outcome measures: SF-12 Mental Component Score, SF-12 Physical Component Score, Harris Hip score, and satisfaction scores. These correlations remained statistically significant in the multivariate regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were more committed to their therapy after hip resurfacing returned to higher levels of functionality and were more satisfied following their surgery.

Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that there is a learning curve for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. The purpose of this study was to assess whether implant positioning changed with surgeon experience and whether positioning and component sizing were associated with implant longevity. METHODS: We evaluated the first 361 consecutive hip resurfacings performed by a single surgeon, which had a mean follow-up of 59 months (range, 28 to 87 months). Pre and post-operative radiographs were assessed to determine the inclination of the acetabular component, as well as the sagittal and coronal femoral stem-neck angles. Changes in the precision of component placement were determined by assessing changes in the standard deviation of each measurement using variance ratio and linear regression analysis. Additionally, the cup and stem-shaft angles as well as component sizes were compared between the 31 hips that failed over the follow-up period and the surviving components to assess for any differences that might have been associated with an increased risk for failure. RESULTS: Surgeon experience was correlated with improved precision of the antero-posterior and lateral positioning of the femoral component. However, femoral and acetabular radiographic implant positioning angles were not different between the surviving hips and failures. The failures had smaller mean femoral component diameters as compared to the non-failure group (44 versus 47 millimeters). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there may be differences in implant positioning in early versus late learning curve procedures, but that in the absence of recognized risk factors such as intra-operative notching of the femoral neck and cup inclination in excess of 50 degrees, component positioning does not appear to be associated with failure. Nevertheless, surgeons should exercise caution in operating patients with small femoral necks, especially when they are early in the learning curve.