Download PDF
The Journal of Hip Surgery 2023; 07(02): 086-090
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1769083
Original Article

Hip Resurfacing is Associated with Significantly Shorter Length of Stay and Increased Postoperative Mobilization than Total Hip Arthroplasty

Akram A. Habibi 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
David Kugelman
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Thomas Bieganowski
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
William Macaulay
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Ran Schwarzkopf
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Scott E. Marwin
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (HRA) is performed as an alternative for total hip arthroplasty (THA) for symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in young, active male patients. This article seeks to determine if there is a difference in postoperative pain, mobilization, and opioid consumption between HRA and THA. A single-institution total joint arthroplasty database was utilized to identify adult patients who underwent elective HRA or THA between 2016 and 2019. Baseline demographic data along with operative time and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were collected. Patients were matched by age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), and CCI. Morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and visual analog scale scores were collected. Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) was used to determine physical therapy progress. A total of 7,387 cases were identified: 96.59% THA (7,135) and 3.41% HRA (252). HRA patients were significantly younger (52.52 vs. 64.04 years; p < 0.001), had higher BMI (30.03 vs. 29.40; p = 0.029), and were almost exclusively male as compared with the THA cohort (98.8% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.001). HRA patients had lower CCI scores (0.36 vs. 1.14; p < 0.001). Surgical time was greater for HRA (124.81 vs. 103.82 minutes; p < 0.001). HRA patients had significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) than THA patients (1.17 vs. 1.48 days; p < 0.001) and had significantly better AM-PAC scores (21.52 vs. 20.65; p = 0.032). HRA patients exhibited a trend toward home discharge (0.4% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.057). Aggregate opioid consumption (23.63 vs. 27.89 MME; p = 0.321) and pain scores (3.47 vs. 3.28; p = 0.438) were not different between matched cohorts. HRA patients are younger, almost exclusively male, and have lower CCI scores at time of surgery. HRA is associated with significantly shorter LOS and greater mobilization measures. They tended to have a higher rate of home discharge. Both groups had similar pain scores and opioid consumption.

Level III Retrospective Cohort Study.

Keywords

hip resurfacing - total hip arthroplasty - length of stay - mobilization - pain score


Publication History

Received: 10 October 2022

Accepted: 25 April 2023

Article published online:
19 May 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Murray DW, Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Gundle R, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P. The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (09) 1180-1186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA, Wisk LE. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (16) 2663-2671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Van Der Straeten C, Gross TP, Amstutz H. et al; and the International Hip Resurfacing Group. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients: international high-volume centres' report on the outcome of 11,382 metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties in patients >50 years at surgery. Hip Int 2022; 32 (03) 353-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJW. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86 (02) 177-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mont MA, Ragland PS, Etienne G, Seyler TM, Schmalzried TP. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006; 14 (08) 454-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Hip resurfacing: history, current status, and future. Hip Int 2015; 25 (04) 330-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Annual Report 2015 - Shoulder Arthroplasty Annual Report 2015 - Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Annual Report 2015 - 2015 - AOANJRR. Accessed June 3, 2022, at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2015
    PubMed
  • 8 Marker DR, Seyler TM, Jinnah RH, Delanois RE, Ulrich SD, Mont MA. Femoral neck fractures after metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (7, Suppl 3): 66-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Langton DJ, Joyce TJ, Jameson SS. et al. Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (02) 164-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Marshall DA, Pykerman K, Werle J. et al. Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (07) 2217-2230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Menendez ME, Schumacher CS, Ring D, Freiberg AA, Rubash HE, Kwon YM. Does “6-Clicks” day 1 postoperative mobility score predict discharge disposition after total hip and knee arthroplasties?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (09) 1916-1920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Keswani A, Tasi MC, Fields A, Lovy AJ, Moucha CS, Bozic KJ. Discharge destination after total joint arthroplasty: an analysis of postdischarge outcomes, placement risk factors, and recent trends. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (06) 1155-1162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bozic KJ, Ward L, Vail TP, Maze M. Bundled payments in total joint arthroplasty: targeting opportunities for quality improvement and cost reduction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (01) 188-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mayer MA, Pirruccio K, Sloan M, Sheth NP. Discharge home is associated with decreased early complications following primary total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (11) 2586-2593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lee N, Thompson NR, Passek S, Stilphen M, Katzan IL. Minimally clinically important change in the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC), a generic patient-reported outcome tool, in people with low back pain. Phys Ther 2017; 97 (11) 1094-1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kugelman DN, Teo G, Huang S, Doran MG, Singh V, Long WJ. A novel machine learning predictive tool assessing outpatient or inpatient designation for Medicare patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 2021; 8: 194-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Haas DA, Zhang X, Davis III CM, Iorio R, Barnes CL. The financial implications of the removal of total knee arthroplasty from the Medicare inpatient-only list. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (6S): S33-S36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Peres-da-Silva A, Kleeman LT, Wellman SS. et al. what factors drive inpatient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (06) 1769-1772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mistry JB, Chughtai M, Elmallah RK. et al. What influences how patients rate their hospital after total hip arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (11) 2422-2425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Benito J, Stafford J, Judd H, Ng M, Corces A, Roche MW. Length of stay increases 90-day readmission rates in patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2022; 6 (03) e21.00271
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Yoon RS, Geller JA, Nyce JD, Morrison TA, Macaulay W. Hip resurfacing is less painful at 24 hours than hip replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 2012; 43 (05) e8-e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar