Early rehabilitation comparing hip resurfacing and total hip replacement

Abstract

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (RS) is said to be an operation that is suitable for the younger osteoarthritic population, allowing them to rehabilitate more rapidly. We wished to establish whether this was true and compared 35 consecutive RS (33 patients) with 41 consecutive total hip replacements (THR) (40 patients) and looked specifically at postoperative pain, speed of rehab-ilitation and length of hospital stay. A rehabilitation score was used. RS patients were significantly younger than THR patients (mean 53.0 years for RS, 64.7 years for THR; p<0.0001). However, no significant difference was found in the mean rehabilitation score at any stage after surgery or in the speed of rehabilitation between the two groups. Neither postoperative pain nor the length of hospit-alisation was significantly different between the two groups. We conclude that resurfacing arthroplasty has no evidence of an advantage over total hip replacement in the speed of postoperative rehabilitation. (Hip International 2005; 15: 189-94).

Bremsfähigkeit von Patienten nach endoprothetischer Versorgung des Hüftgelenks – Einfluss von Prothesendesign und präoperativem Status

“…So könnte er in diesem Altersbereich zu gering gewesen sein, um große altersabhängige Unterschiede bezüglich der physischen Regeneration zu zeigen. Ein diese Vermutung unterstützendes Ergebnis des für diese Altersspanne nebensächlichen Alterseinflusses auf die Rehabilitationsgeschwindigkeit liefert die Untersuchung von Lilikakis et al [9]. Sie stellte in den ersten 8 postoperativen Tagen ebenfalls keinen Unterschied in der Rehabilitationsgeschwindigkeit zwischen HRA-und THA-Patienten bezüglich des Erreichens vorgegebener funktioneller Aufgaben fest.…”

Curved-stem Hip Resurfacing

“…It also offers several procedural benefits: it is more bone conserving than conventional hip arthroplasty because it does not involve decapitation of the femur, and it results in less blood loss and rehabilitates more easily [25,42,43]. The disadvantages of this procedure include the risk of femoral neck fracture (0%-7%) [2,3,14,29,40] and collapse of the femoral head resulting from osteonecrosis (0%-4%) [8,26].…”

“…Hip resurfacing offers several functional benefits over THA: the size of the femoral head and neck remains close to normal, the resurfaced hip is stable [1,2,14,40] and capable of an excellent range of motion [2,3,14,30], and the joint retains a greater degree of normal biomechanical function [25,30,33,42,43]. It also offers several procedural benefits: it is more bone conserving than conventional hip arthroplasty because it does not involve decapitation of the femur, and it results in less blood loss and rehabilitates more easily [25,42,43].…”