This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the exams for this article: Adult Hip Reconstruction Test 27: Winter 2008 (publication date February 15... CME 4: October, November, December 2007 (publication date January 4, 2008; ... [Supplementary Material] Letters to the Editor: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Le Duff, M. J. Articles by Dorey, F. J. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Le Duff, M. J. Articles by Dorey, F. J. Related Collections Adult Hip Social Bookmarking             What's this?

Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing for Obese Patients

¹ Joint Replacement Institute, 2400 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007. E-mail address for H.C. Amstutz: hamstutz{at}laoh.ucla.edu
² Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, 4650 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90027
Investigation performed at the Joint Replacement Institute at Saint Vincent Medical Center, Los Angeles, California

Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from the William McGowan Charitable Fund and the Los Angeles St. Vincent Medical Center. In addition, one or more of the authors or a member of his or her immediate family received, in any one year, payments or other benefits in excess of $10,000 or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Wright Medical Technology). Also, a commercial entity (Wright Medical Technology) paid or directed in any one year, or agreed to pay or direct, benefits in excess of $10,000 to a research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which one or more of the authors, or a member of his or her immediate family, is affiliated or associated.

A video supplement to this article will be available from the Video Journal of Orthopaedics. A video clip will be available at the JBJS web site, www.jbjs.org. The Video Journal of Orthopaedics can be contacted at (805) 962-3410, web site: www.vjortho.com.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our registry to identify all patients who had been followed for at least two years after a metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty, and we divided those patients according to whether they had had a body mass index of 30 (the study group) or <30 (the control group) at the time of the surgery. One hundred and twenty-five patients (144 hips) with an average weight of 104.6 kg and an average body mass index of 33.4 were included in the study group, and 531 patients (626 hips) with an average weight of 78.3 kg and an average body mass index of 25.4 were included in the control group. We compared the clinical results (UCLA [University of California at Los Angeles] and Harris hip scores, SF-12 [Short Form-12] survey results, and complication rates), radiographic results, and prosthetic survival rates of the two groups.

Results: There was no significant difference postoperatively between the groups with regard to the UCLA pain or walking scores or the mental component score of the SF-12. However, the UCLA function and activity scores were lower in the study group than in the control group (9.2 compared with 9.6 points [p = 0.001] and 7.1 compared with 7.6 points [p = 0.002], respectively). The control group had a significantly higher postoperative physical component score on the SF-12 (51.4 points compared with 49.3 points in the study group, p = 0.01) and postoperative Harris hip score (93.8 compared with 90.6 points, p = 0.0003). Two hips (1.4%) were revised in the study group. In contrast, thirty-one hips (5.0%) were converted to a total hip replacement in the control group; twenty of the thirty-one were revised because of loosening of the femoral component. The five-year survivorship of the hip prostheses was 98.6% in the study group and 93.6% in the control group (p = 0.0401). When the entire cohort was divided into three groups according to whether the body mass index was <25, 25 to 29, or 30, the risk of revision was found to have decreased twofold from one group to the next as the body mass index increased (p = 0.013). No acetabular component loosened in either group. The average diameter of the femoral component was 48.3 mm in the study group and 46.8 mm in the control group (p = 0.0001). There were no revisions for any reason and no radiolucencies were observed in a subset of twenty-seven patients with a body mass index of 35.

Conclusions: Metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty is performing well in patients with a high body mass index, although the function scores are reduced compared with those for patients with a body mass index of <30. The protective effect of a high body mass index on survivorship results may be explained by a reduced activity level and a greater component size in this patient population.

Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Shimmin, P. E. Beaule, and P. Campbell Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2008; 90(3): 637 - 654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press (TM) assists in the publication of JBJS Online.
Copyright © 2007 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. Online ISSN: 1535-1386.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery®, JBJS®, JB&JS®, and eJBJS® are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.