Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHANG Zihao ,  SHEN Bin , YANG Jing , ZHOU Zongke , KANG Pengde , PEI Fuxing

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China;

Corresponding author：

SHEN Bin, Email: shenbin71@hotmail.com

Keywords：

Total hip arthroplasty; Total hip resurfacing arthroplasty; Osteoarthritis; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trial

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20130170

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective 　To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of total hip arthroplasty (THA) vs. total hip resurfacing arthroplasty (THRA) in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip joint.
Methods 　We electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2012), EMbase, PloS, national institutes of clinical test library of the United States, national joint replacement registration network of Australia, British national joint registration network, British orthopaedic association network (BOA), Canada orthopaedic association (COA), American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons network (AAOS), German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information network (DIMDI) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison between THA and THRA for osteoarthritis of the hip joint from inception to November, 2012. References of the included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software.
Results 　Six RCTs (10 articles) involving 518 cases of surgery (THA: n=259; THRA: n=259) were identified. The risk of bias of 8 articles was moderate and that of the other 2 articles was low. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared to THRA, THA brings greater improvements of femoral offset within 2 years after surgery (MD=6.60, 95%CI 5.53 to 7.68, P=0.25). There were no significant differences between the two groups in Merle d’Aubigné Postel, WOMAC score, UCLA score, SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire, walking speed, step length, walking cadence, postoperative leg length discrepancy, and complication rates. All these conclusions are based on early postoperative results.
Conclusion 　Current evidence shows that, THA brings greater improvements of femoral offset than THRA, and no significant differences between the two groups were found in the other indicators.

Citation： ZHANG Zihao,SHEN Bin,YANG Jing,ZHOU Zongke,KANG Pengde,PEI Fuxing. Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2013, 13(8): 978-984. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20130170 Copy

1.	Berry DJ. Primary total hip arthroplasty. In: Chapman MW, ed. Chapman’s Orthopaedic Surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001: 2769-1790.
2.	So K, Kanatani KT, Kuroda Y, et al. Good short-term outcome of primary total hip arthroplasty with cementless bioactive glass ceramic bottom-coated implants. Acta Orthop, 2012, 83(6): 599-603.
3.	Yoo JJ, Yoon PW, Lee YK, et al. Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using an Alumina-On-Alumina Bearing Surface in Patients With Osteolysis. J Arthroplasty, 2013, 28(1): 132-138.
4.	Trumm BN, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, et al. Revision with Cementless Acetabular Components: A Concise Follow-up, at a Minimum of Twenty Years, of Previous Reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2012, 94(21): 2001-2004.
5.	Nourissat C, Essig J, Asencio G, et al. The Cementless Anatomic Benoist Girard (ABG) II Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Minimum 8-Year Follow-Up Study. J Arthroplasty, 2013, 28(4): 707-711.
6.	Mertl P, Combes A, Leiber-Wackenheim F, et al. Recurrence of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty revision using dual mobility cups was rare in 180 hips followed over 7 years. HSS J, 2012, 8(3): 251-256.
7.	Sariali E, Mouttet A, Mordasini P, et al. High 10-year survival rate with an anatomic cementless stem (SPS). Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(7): 1941-1949.
8.	Massin P, Orain V, Philippot R, et al. Fixation failures of dual mobility cups: a mid-term study of 2601 hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(7): 1932-1940.
9.	Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, et al. 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.
10.	Lingard EA, Muthumayandi K, Holland JP. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2009, 91(12): 1550-1554.
11.	Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, et al. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2006, 453: 123-131.
12.	Klotz MC, Breusch SJ, Hassenpflug M, et al. Results of 5 to 10-year follow-up after hip resurfacing. A systematic analysis of the literature on long-term results. Orthopade, 2012, 41(6): 442-451.
13.	Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum, 1991, 34(5): 505-514.
14.	Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, et al. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2006, 88(6): 721-726.
15.	Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal‐on‐metal total hip arthroplasty and metal‐on‐metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. HIP Int, 2006, 16(Suppl 4): 73‐81.
16.	Girard J, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG, et al. Femoral offset restauration and clinical function after total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement of the hip: a randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot, 2008, 94(4): 376-381.
17.	Lavigne M, Masse V, Girard J, et al. Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot, 2008, 94(4): 361-367.
18.	Rama KR, Vendittoli PA, Ganapathi M, et al. Heterotopic ossification after surface replacement arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2009: 256‐262.
19.	Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, et al. The John Charnley Award: The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large‐head THA is the same: a randomized, double‐blind study. Clinical orthopaedics and Related Research, 2010: 326‐336.
20.	Jensen C, Aagaard P, Overgaard S. Recovery in mechanical muscle strength following resurfacing vs standard total hip arthroplasty - a randomised clinical trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 2011, 19(9): 1108-1116.
21.	Smolders JM, Hol A, Rijnberg WJ, et al. "Metal ion levels and functional results after either resurfacing hip arthroplasty or conventional metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop, 2011, 82(5): 559-566.
22.	Petersen MK, Andersen NT, Mogensen P, et al. Gait analysis after total hip replacement with hip resurfacing implant or Mallory‐head Exeter prosthesis: a randomised controlled trial. Int Orthop, 2011, 35(5): 667‐674.
23.	Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 2012, 344: e2147.
24.	吴泰相, 刘关键. 隐蔽分组(分配隐藏)和盲法的概念、实施与报告. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(3): 203-207．.
25.	吴泰相, 刘关键, 李静. 影响系统评价质量的主要因素浅析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2005, 5(1): 51-58.
26.	Instructions for authors. Available from: http://jbjs.org/public/instructionsauthors.aspx.
27.	Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 2010, 340: c332.

1. Berry DJ. Primary total hip arthroplasty. In: Chapman MW, ed. Chapman’s Orthopaedic Surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001: 2769-1790.
2. So K, Kanatani KT, Kuroda Y, et al. Good short-term outcome of primary total hip arthroplasty with cementless bioactive glass ceramic bottom-coated implants. Acta Orthop, 2012, 83(6): 599-603.
3. Yoo JJ, Yoon PW, Lee YK, et al. Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using an Alumina-On-Alumina Bearing Surface in Patients With Osteolysis. J Arthroplasty, 2013, 28(1): 132-138.
4. Trumm BN, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, et al. Revision with Cementless Acetabular Components: A Concise Follow-up, at a Minimum of Twenty Years, of Previous Reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2012, 94(21): 2001-2004.
5. Nourissat C, Essig J, Asencio G, et al. The Cementless Anatomic Benoist Girard (ABG) II Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Minimum 8-Year Follow-Up Study. J Arthroplasty, 2013, 28(4): 707-711.
6. Mertl P, Combes A, Leiber-Wackenheim F, et al. Recurrence of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty revision using dual mobility cups was rare in 180 hips followed over 7 years. HSS J, 2012, 8(3): 251-256.
7. Sariali E, Mouttet A, Mordasini P, et al. High 10-year survival rate with an anatomic cementless stem (SPS). Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(7): 1941-1949.
8. Massin P, Orain V, Philippot R, et al. Fixation failures of dual mobility cups: a mid-term study of 2601 hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(7): 1932-1940.
9. Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, et al. 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.
10. Lingard EA, Muthumayandi K, Holland JP. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2009, 91(12): 1550-1554.
11. Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, et al. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2006, 453: 123-131.
12. Klotz MC, Breusch SJ, Hassenpflug M, et al. Results of 5 to 10-year follow-up after hip resurfacing. A systematic analysis of the literature on long-term results. Orthopade, 2012, 41(6): 442-451.
13. Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum, 1991, 34(5): 505-514.
14. Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, et al. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2006, 88(6): 721-726.
15. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal‐on‐metal total hip arthroplasty and metal‐on‐metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. HIP Int, 2006, 16(Suppl 4): 73‐81.
16. Girard J, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG, et al. Femoral offset restauration and clinical function after total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement of the hip: a randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot, 2008, 94(4): 376-381.
17. Lavigne M, Masse V, Girard J, et al. Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot, 2008, 94(4): 361-367.
18. Rama KR, Vendittoli PA, Ganapathi M, et al. Heterotopic ossification after surface replacement arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2009: 256‐262.
19. Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, et al. The John Charnley Award: The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large‐head THA is the same: a randomized, double‐blind study. Clinical orthopaedics and Related Research, 2010: 326‐336.
20. Jensen C, Aagaard P, Overgaard S. Recovery in mechanical muscle strength following resurfacing vs standard total hip arthroplasty - a randomised clinical trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 2011, 19(9): 1108-1116.
21. Smolders JM, Hol A, Rijnberg WJ, et al. "Metal ion levels and functional results after either resurfacing hip arthroplasty or conventional metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop, 2011, 82(5): 559-566.
22. Petersen MK, Andersen NT, Mogensen P, et al. Gait analysis after total hip replacement with hip resurfacing implant or Mallory‐head Exeter prosthesis: a randomised controlled trial. Int Orthop, 2011, 35(5): 667‐674.
23. Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 2012, 344: e2147.
24. 吴泰相, 刘关键. 隐蔽分组(分配隐藏)和盲法的概念、实施与报告. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(3): 203-207．.
25. 吴泰相, 刘关键, 李静. 影响系统评价质量的主要因素浅析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2005, 5(1): 51-58.
26. Instructions for authors. Available from: http://jbjs.org/public/instructionsauthors.aspx.
27. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 2010, 340: c332.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content