The Library

A randomised controlled trial of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young patients with arthritis of the hip joint

Tools

Achten, Juul, Parsons, Nicholas R., Edlin, Richard P., Griffin, Damian R. and Costa, Matthew L.. (2010) A randomised controlled trial of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young patients with arthritis of the hip joint. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, Vol.11 (Article no.8). ISSN 1471-2474

PDF
WRAP_Parsons_Randomised_control.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (363Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-8

Abstract

Background: Hip replacement (arthroplasty) surgery is a highly successful treatment for patients with severe symptomatic arthritis of the hip joint. For older patients, several designs of Total Hip Arthroplasty have shown excellent results in terms of both function and value for money. However, in younger more active patients, there is approximately a 50% failure rate at 25 years for traditional implants. Hip resurfacing is a relatively new arthroplasty technique. In a recent review of the literature on resurfacing arthroplasty it was concluded that the short-term functional results appear promising but some potential early disadvantages were identified, including the risk of femoral neck fracture and collapse of the head of the femur. The aim of the current study is to assess whether there is a difference in functional hip scores at one year post-operation between Total Hip Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty. Secondary aims include assessment of complication rates for both procedures as well cost effectiveness. Methods/design: All patients medically fit for surgery and deemed suitable for a resurfacing arthroplasty are eligible to take part in this study. A randomisation sequence will be produced and administered independently. After consenting, all patients will be clinically reviewed and hip function, quality of life and physical activity level will be assessed through questionnaires. The allocated surgery will then be performed with the preferred technique of the surgeon. Six weeks post-operation hip function will be assessed and complications recorded. Three, six and 12 months post-operation hip function, quality of life and physical activity level will be assessed. Additional information about patients' out-of-pocket expenses will also be collected.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > RD Surgery
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Clinical Sciences Research Institute (CSRI) Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Arthroplasty -- Research, Total hip replacement, Hip joint -- Surgery, Arthritis -- Treatment
Journal or Publication Title:	BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Publisher:	BioMed Central Ltd.
ISSN:	1471-2474
Date:	14 January 2010
Volume:	Vol.11
Number:	Article no.8
Identification Number:	10.1186/1471-2474-11-8
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	National Institute for Health Research (Great Britain) (NIHR)
References:	1. Murray DW, Carr AJ, Bulstrode CJ: Which primary total hip replacement?. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995, 77(4):520-527. 2. Wroblewski BM, Fleming PA, Siney PD: Charnley low-frictional torque arthroplasty of the hip. 20-to-30 year results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999, 81(3):427-430. 3. Digas G, Karrholm J, Thanner J, Malchau H, Herberts P: The Otto Aufranc Award. Highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: randomized evaluation of penetration rate in cemented and uncemented sockets using radiostereometric analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, , 429: 6-16. 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. Cuckler JM: The optimal metal-metal arthroplasty is still a total hip arthroplasty: in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty 2006, 21(4 Suppl 1):74-76. 6. Loughead JM, Chesney D, Holland JP, McCaskie AW: Comparison of offset in Birmingham hip resurfacing and hybrid total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005, 87(2):163-166. 7. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Girard J, Roy AG: A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006, 88(8):997-1002. 8. 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. 9. Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, Pietrobon R: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 453:123-131. 10. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D: Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996, 78(2):185-190. 11. 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. 12. Curtis L: Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2007. Personal Social Serivces Research Unit, University of Kent 2007. 13. Brink van den M, Hout van den WB, Stigglebout AM, Putter H, Velde van de CJH, Kievit J: Self-reports of health-care utilization: Diary or questionnaire? Self-reports of health-care utilization: Diary or questionnaire?. Int J Tech Ass Health Care 2005, 21(3):298-304. 14. Soderman P, Malchau H: Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001, , 384: 189-197. 15. Kalairajah Y, Azurza K, Hulme C, Molloy S, Drabu KJ: Health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasties–a comparison between the Harris hip score and the Oxford hip score. J Arthroplasty 2005, 20(8):1037-1041. 16. Beaton D: Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med Care 2003, 41(5):593-596. 17. Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2 1988. 18. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J: The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007, 89(8):1010-1014. 19. Holm S: A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 1979, 6:65-70. 20. Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35(11):1095-1108.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/2914