Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) provides an attractive alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the management of osteoarthritis in younger, more active patients; however, concerns persist over complications specific to HRA. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the documented long-term survival rates of the metal-on-metal BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing System at a follow-up of at least 10 years and to analyze the functional outcomes and cause of failures. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken of all published cohort studies available in the MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed research databases up to December 2021, as recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data extraction was focused on survival rates, causes of failure, and functional outcomes. Survival estimates at 10 years were pooled in a meta-analysis, with each series weighted by its variance. Causes of failure were presented as a percentage of the pooled revisions. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were identified, encompassing 3,129 cases. Across the 9 studies that had reported a mean follow-up, the mean follow-up was 11.7 years (range, 9.55 to 13.7 years). We found a pooled 10-year survival rate of 95.5% (95% confidence interval, 93.4% to 97.1%). There were 149 revisions among the studies (range, 4 to 38 revisions per study), a rate of 4.8% of the total procedures performed. The 2 main causes of revision were aseptic loosening (20.1% of revisions) and adverse reactions to metal debris (20.1%). There were no revisions for dislocation. Of the studies that reported preoperative functional scores, all reported significant improvement in mean scores postoperatively except for 1 study in which the mean Tegner activity score did not significantly improve. CONCLUSIONS: When performed for appropriate indications, patients undergoing an HRA with use of the BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing System can expect good implant survivorship at 10 years with acceptable functional results and low rates of dislocation and infection. This systematic review, however, confirms concerns regarding adverse reactions to metal debris as a leading cause of revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.