Original Research

Does a Prior Hip Arthroscopy Affect Clinical Outcomes in Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty?

Am J Orthop. 2014 November;43(11):E255-E260

References

1. Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty. Surgical Technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(suppl 1 Pt 2):234-249.

2. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(2):177-184.

3. Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(5):592-600.

4. Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(2):167-170.

5. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA, Wisk LE. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(16):2663-2671.

6. Daniel J, Ziaee H, Pradhan C, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Blood and urine metal ion levels in young and active patients after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: four-year results of a prospective longitudinal study.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(2):169-173.

7. deSouza RM, Parsons NR, Oni T, Dalton P, Costa M, Krikler S. Metal ion levels following resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: serial results over a ten-year period. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(12):1642-1647.

8. Kwon YM, Thomas P, Summer B, et al. Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(4):444-450.

9. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2011. Adelaide: Australian Orthopaedic Association; 2011. https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/annual-reports-2011. Accessed September 16, 2014.

10. Coulter G, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(3):315-321.

11. McCarthy JC, Jarrett BT, Ojeifo O, Lee JA, Bragdon CR. What factors influence long-term survivorship after hip arthroscopy? Clin Orthop. 2011;469(2):362-371.

12. Bajwa AS, Villar RN. Arthroscopy of the hip in patients following joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(7):890-896.

13. Piedade SR, Pinaroli A, Servien E, Neyret P. Is previous knee arthroscopy related to worse results in primary total knee arthroplasty? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(4):328-333.

14. Gonzalez Della Valle A, Serota A, Go G, et al. Venous thromboembolism is rare with a multimodal prophylaxis protocol after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2006;(444):146-153.

15. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51(4):737-755.

16. Kershaw CJ, Atkins RM, Dodd CA, Bulstrode CJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic failure. A review of 276 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(4):564-568.

17. Bellamy N. WOMAC: a 20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-reported health status questionnaire. J Rheumatol. 2002;29(12):2473-2476.

18. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220-233.

19. Clark JM, Freeman MA, Witham D. The relationship of neck orientation to the shape of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty. 1987;2(2):99-109.

20. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(2):217-220.

21. Yao L, Yao J, Gold RH. Measurement of acetabular version on the axiolateral radiograph. Clin Orthop. 1995;(316):106-111.

22. Piedade SR, Pinaroli A, Servien E, Neyret P. TKA outcomes after prior bone and soft tissue knee surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(12):2737-2743.

23. Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(1):28-39.

24. Steffen RT, Pandit HP, Palan J, et al. The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(4):436-441.

Discussion

Given the increasing prevalence of hip arthroscopies to treat multiple disorders of the native joint, it is important to assess the potential consequences of these procedures on future arthroplasties. Piedade and colleagues,¹³ in a retrospective review of 1474 primary total knee arthroplasties, showed a prior bony procedure (high tibial osteotomy, tibial plateau fracture, patellar realignment) to be predictive of decreased range of motion postoperatively. In addition, a prior knee arthroscopy was associated with a higher rate of postoperative complications, with 30% of the complications requiring a reoperation, and 8.3% of the complications requiring a revision total knee arthroplasty. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed a survival rate of only 86.8% in those patients with a prior knee arthroscopy (vs 98.1% in those without a prior knee surgery).²² Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a series of patients who received an HRA after a prior hip arthroscopy. After the initial 6-week follow-up visit, no significant difference was seen in the functional outcomes between those patients with or without a history of prior hip arthroscopy who received an HRA.

After analysis of patient outcomes using multiple clinical measurement tools, at 6-week, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and most recent follow-up intervals, the only significant difference between the 2 cohorts was the WOMAC score at 6-week follow-up. Interestingly, there was no significant difference seen in the other clinical assessments, including the SF-12 score, HHS, range of motion, or UCLA activity score (although this did trend towards significance). This can be explained by the difference in both the mode of administration and various metrics assessed by these instruments. In comparison to the HHS evaluation, the patient completes the WOMAC (rather than the clinician) and also provides a more detailed assessment of symptoms, pain, stiffness, and activities of daily living.¹⁷ Therefore, this study suggests that patients with a prior hip arthroscopy may require more time to return to their activities of daily living after an HRA. However, whether the statistically significant difference between the 2 scores translates into a clinically significant difference can be questioned.

The clinical outcomes of this series of patients were excellent at the short-term follow-up, and both groups achieved clinical results comparable to prior reported results of HRA.^1,10,23,24 However, despite these results, there are several limitations to this study. First, longer-term follow-up is required to determine if any significant differences (such as aseptic loosening, infection, and prosthesis survival) are associated with a prior hip arthroscopy. In addition, this study included a relatively small cohort of patients who had a prior hip arthroscopy. However, a relatively large, single-surgeon database of 1357 HRAs was reviewed, with only 51 cases being reported (3.7%). With the increasing popularity of hip arthroscopy, the number of patients presenting for HRA will likely continue to increase. However, despite these limitations, this study shows that a prior hip arthroscopy does not appear to affect the short-term, clinical outcomes of a metal-on-metal HRA.