Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The reported outcomes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) vary. The frequency of this procedure in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden is low. We therefore determined the outcome of HRA in the NARA database, which is common to all 3 countries, and compared it to the outcome of conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: The risk of non-septic revision within 2 years was analyzed in 1,638 HRAs and compared to that for 172,554 conventional total hip arthroplasties (THAs), using Cox regression models. We calculated relative risk (RR) of revision and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: HRA had an almost 3-fold increased revision risk compared to THA (RR = 2.7, 95% CI:1.9-3.7). The difference was even greater when HRA was compared to the THA subgroup of cemented THAs (RR = 3.8, CI: 2.7-5.3). For men below 50 years of age, this difference was less pronounced (HRA vs. THA: RR = 1.9, CI: 1.0-3.9; HRA vs. cemented THA: RR = 2.4, CI: 1.1-5.3), but it was even more pronounced in women of the same age group (HRA vs. THA: RR = 4.7, CI: 2.6-8.5; HRA vs. cemented THA: RR = 7.4, CI: 3.7-15). Within the HRA group, risk of non-septic revision was reduced in hospitals performing ≥ 70 HRAs annually (RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.7) and with use of Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) rather than the other designs as a group (RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.7). Risk of early revision was also reduced in males (RR = 0.5, CI: 0.2-0.9). The femoral head diameter alone had no statistically significant influence on the early revision rate, but it eliminated the significance of male sex in a combined analysis. INTERPRETATION: In general, our results do not support continued use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Men had a lower early revision rate, which was still higher than observed for all-cemented hips. Further follow-up is necessary to determine whether HRA might be useful as an alternative in males.