Background and purpose: Currently it is not clear whether age is a factor affecting revisions in total hip replacement (THR) and hip resurfacing (HR). This study aimed to investigate which of THR or HR has a higher risk in terms of revision and complication within similar age groups.
Methods: A systemic review was performed for published literature research databases and local data and compared the two procedures under the condition that both groups of patients were age matched. Meta-analysis techniques were used to analyse revision and complication rates. Twenty-seven literature studies were included along with local audit data. In total, 2520 HR procedures were compared with age-matched 2526 of THR procedures.
Main findings: It was found that revision risk of HR is significantly higher than THR (risk ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.28-2.31, p < 0.0001), highlighting that HR has a slightly higher chance of reoperation when compared to THR within the similar age group population. In terms of complications, HR was found to have an advantage over THR (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96, p < 0.01).
Conclusion: THR had a lower revision risk but a slightly higher complication risk than HR under the condition that the two surgical procedures were applied to similar age groups of patients. In other words, age has not played an important role in revision and complication. Survivorship cannot be measured as follow-up periods were different in the studies used.
Keywords: Age; Complication; Hip resurfacing; Revision; Risk ratio; Total hip replacement.
Copyright © 2018 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.