ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty is the gold standard for the end stage of elderly hip disease, but Birmingham hip resurfacing has become an effective alternative to total hip arthroplasty for young people with high levels of exercise. Whether Birmingham hip resurfacing has an advantage over total hip arthroplasty is still inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the efficacy and metal ion level of Birmingham hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: The electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science, which last updated on November 30, 2018, were searched for clinical control study of Birmingham hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. Literature data were extracted and literature quality was evaluated. Meta-analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Twelve studies were identified with a total of 2 317 patients (n=1 279 in Birmingham hip resurfacing group and n=1 038 in total hip arthroplasty group). (2) Meta-analysis results demonstrated that in the primary outcome measures, the Birmingham hip resurfacing group did not differ from the total hip arthroplasty group during short-term follow-up (RR=0.13, 95% CI [0.02, 1.01], P=0.05), but Birmingham hip resurfacing had a lower revision rate during long-term follow-up (RR=0.27, 95% CI [0.15, 0.50], P 0.05). (4) Finally, in the metal ion level, whether it was short-term follow-up or long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference between Birmingham hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty (P < 0.05). While at the Cr ion level, there was no significant difference between Birmingham hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty in short-term follow-up (P=0.55), but long-term follow-up showed that Birmingham hip resurfacing released more Cr ions than total hip arthroplasty after surgery, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (P=0.03). (5) In conclusion, compared with total hip arthroplasty, Birmingham hip resurfacing has a smaller revision rate and overall complication, a better hip function score, but its Cr ion level is higher. This conclusion still needs further a great amount of large-sample, multi-center, high-quality randomized controlled trials to verify its correctness.
ABSTRACT
Total hip arthroplasty in the young leads to difficult choices in implant selection. Until recently bone conserving options were not available for younger patients with deficient femoral head bone stock. The novel Birmingham Mid-Head Resection (BMHR) device offers the option of bone conserving arthroplasty in spite of deficient femoral head bone stock. Femoral neck fracture is a known complication of standard resurfacing arthroplasty and is the most common reason for revision. It is unknown whether this remains to be the case for the BMHR neck preserving implants. We report a case of a 57-year-old male, who sustained a periprosthetic fracture following surgery with a BMHR arthroplasty. This paper illustrates the first reported case of a BMHR periprosthetic fracture. The fracture pattern is spiral in nature and reaches to the subtrochanteric area. This fracture pattern is different from published cadaveric studies, and clinicians using this implant should be aware of this as revision is likely to require a distally fitting, rather than a metaphyseal fitting stem. We have illustrated the surgical technique to manage this rare complication.