Is there evidence to support an indication for surface replacement arthroplasty?

Abstract

Aims Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA), compared with traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA), is more expensive and carries unique concern related to metal ions production and hypersensitivity. Additionally, SRA is a more demanding procedure with a decreased margin for error compared with THA. To justify its use, SRA must demonstrate comparable component survival and some clinical advantages. We therefore performed a systematic literature review to investigate the differences in complication rates, patient-reported outcomes, stress shielding, and hip biomechanics between SRA and THA. Materials and Methods A systematic review of the literature was completed using MEDLINE and EMBASE search engines. Inclusion criteria were level I to level III articles that reported clinical outcomes following primary SRA compared with THA. An initial search yielded 2503 potential articles for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included review articles, level IV or level V evidence, less than one year’s follow-up, and previously reported data. In total, 27 articles with 4182 patients were available to analyze. Results Fracture and infection rates were similar between SRA and THA, while dislocation rates were lower in SRA compared with THA. SRA demonstrated equivalent patient-reported outcome scores with greater activity scores and a return to high-level activities compared with THA. SRA more reliably restored native hip joint biomechanics and decreased stress shielding of the proximal femur compared with THA. Conclusion In young active men with osteoarthritis, there is evidence that SRA offers some potential advantages over THA, including: improved return to high level activities and sport, restoration of native hip biomechanics, and decreased proximal femoral stress shielding. Continued long-term follow up is required to assess ultimate survivorship of SRA.