Selected studies comparing outcomes of total hip replacement and hip resurfacing
| Study | Design | Final follow-up, yr | Sample size | Outcome | Findings at follow-up (total hip replacement v. hip resurfacing) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garbuz et al.70 | RCT | Mean 1.1 (range 0.8– 2.2) | 107 | WOMAC score, mean | 90.1 v. 90.4, p = 0.950 |
| SF-36 physical function score, mean | 51.2 v. 51.2, p = 0.979 | ||||
| Lavigne et al.71 | RCT | 1 | 48 | Gait speed, m/s | 1.46 ± 0.18 v. 1.44 ± 0.19, p > 0.05 |
| Step length, m | 0.68 ± 0.07 v. 0.67 ± 0.07, p > 0.05 | ||||
| Pollard et al.56 | Retrospective, matched cohort | 5–7 | 108 | UCLA activity score | 6.8 v. 8.4, p < 0.001 |
| EQ-5D score | 0.78 v. 0.9, p = 0.003 | ||||
| Smith et al.48 | UK registry | 5 | > 400 000 | Implant failure | Total hip replacement: 2.8% (95% CI 2.7% to 2.9%) |
| Hip resurfacing: Men: 3.6% (95% CI 3.3% to 3.9%) Women: 8.5% (95% CI 7.8% to 9.2%) | |||||
| Corten and MacDonald72 | Australian registry | 5 | > 135 000 | Implant failure | Total hip replacement: 2.7% |
| Hip resurfacing: 3.7%, p < 0.001 | |||||
| Johanson et al.73 | Norwegian registry | 2 | > 170 000 | Implant failure, cumulative revision rate | Total hip replacement: 1.2% (95% CI% 1.2 to 1.3%) |
| Hip resurfacing: 3.3% (95% CI 2.2% to 4.3%), p < 0.001 |
Note: CI = confidence interval, EQ-5D = Euro-Qol 5-dimension, RCT = randomized controlled trial, SF-36 = 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, UCLA = University of California Los Angeles, WOMAC = Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index.