Five to Ten-Year Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Implant in the U.S A Single Institution's Experience

Background: International surgeon series and registry data have demonstrated positive outcomes and long-term survival of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant. We report the 5 to 10-year results from a single center in the U.S. Methods: Three hundred and fourteen patients (360 hips) underwent surface replacement arthroplasty with use of the BHR implant and consented to study participation. Patient-reported outcomes and complication and revision data were collected at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up for 93% (324 of 350) of the hips in surviving patients. A matched-cohort analysis was used to compare clinical outcomes between use of the BHR and total hip arthroplasty. Results: Mean modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores significantly improved postoperatively, to 89.9 and 8.0, respectively (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of survival for all-cause revision was 97.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.7% to 98.5%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 88.8% to 96.7%) at 5 and 10 years, respectively. In a subgroup analysis of patients fitting our current BHR inclusion criteria (males < 60 years of age with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and anatomy conducive to a femoral head component of >= 48 mm), survival free of aseptic revision was 99.5% (95% CI, 96.6% to 99.9%) at 5 years and 98.2% (95% CI, 94.4% to 99.4%) at 10 years. Fourteen patients (4.3% of all hips) required revision. Postoperative UCLA scores were significantly greater for BHR compared with total hip arthroplasty (mean score of 8.0 +/- 2.0 versus 7.6 +/- 1.8; p = 0.040) in a matched-cohort analysis, with patients matched according to preoperative UCLA score, diagnosis, age, sex, and body mass index. Among matched patients who were highly active preoperatively (UCLA score of 9 to 10), BHR provided a smaller median decrease in the postoperative UCLA score (0.0 versus 1.0; p < 0.001), which was clinically important according to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID, 0.92). Furthermore, BHR provided a greater likelihood of remaining highly active compared with total hip arthroplasty (61% compared with 20%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: BHR demonstrated excellent survivorship and clinical outcomes at 5 to 10 years in selected patients. As compared with total hip arthroplasty, the use of the BHR may provide highly active patients with clinically important advantages in postoperative activity as well as a greater likelihood of remaining highly active. Continued follow-up is necessary to validate long-term BHR outcomes.