Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Population-based registry data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) and from the National Joint Register of England and Wales have revealed that the outcome after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is inferior to that of conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). We analyzed the short-term survival of 4,401 HRAs in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. METHODS: We compared the revision risk of the 4,401 HRAs from the Register to that of 48,409 THAs performed during the same time period. The median follow-up time was 3.5 (0-9) years for HRAs and 3.9 (0-9) years for THAs. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in revision risk between HRAs and THAs (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.78-1.10). Female patients had about double the revision risk of male patients (RR = 2.0, CI: 1.4-2.7). Hospitals that had performed 100 or more HRA procedures had a lower revision risk than those with less than 100 HRAs (RR = 0.6, CI: 0.4-0.9). Articular Surface Replacement (ASR, DePuy) had inferior outcome with higher revision risk than the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant (BHR, Smith & Nephew), the reference implant (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.2-2.7). INTERPRETATION: We found that HRA had comparable short-term survivorship to THA at a nationwide level. Implant design had an influence on revision rates. ASR had higher revision risk. Low hospital procedure volume worsened the outcome of HRA. Female patients had twice the revision risk of male patients.