Sandiford et al. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2010, 5:8 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement - early results Nemandra A Sandiford1*, Sarah K Muirhead-Allwood1,2, John A Skinner2, Jia Hua2 Abstract Introduction: There is no current consensus on the most appropriate prosthesis for treating symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip in young, active patients. Modern metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HR) has gained popularity as it is theoretically more stable, bone conserving and easier to revise than total hip arthroplasty. Early results of metal on metal resurfacing have been encouraging. We have compared two. | Sandiford et al. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2010 5 8 http content 5 1 8 JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement - early results Nemandra A Sandiford1 Sarah K Muirhead-Allwood1 2 John A Skinner2 Jia Hua2 Abstract Introduction There is no current consensus on the most appropriate prosthesis for treating symptomatic osteoarthritis OA of the hip in young active patients. Modern metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty HR has gained popularity as it is theoretically more stable bone conserving and easier to revise than total hip arthroplasty. Early results of metal on metal resurfacing have been encouraging. We have compared two well matched cohorts of patients with regard to function pain relief and patient satisfaction. Methods This prospective study compares 2 cohorts of young active patients treated with hip resurfacing 137 patients 141 hips and custom uncemented CADCAM stems 134 patients 141 hips . All procedures were performed by a single surgeon. Outcome measures included Oxford WOMAC and Harris hip scores as well as an activity score. Statistical analysis was performed using the unpaired student s t-test. Results One hundred and thirty four and 137 patients were included in the hip replacement and resurfacing groups respectively. The mean age of these patients was years. The mean duration of follow up for the hip resurfacing group was months compared to months for the total hip replacement group. Pre operative oxford Harris and WOMAC scores in the THA group were and respectively while the post operative scores were and . In the HR group pre- operative scores were and respectively compared to and post operatively. The degree of improvement was similar in both groups. Conclusion There was no significant clinical difference between the patients .
