Within the DRK Clinics in Berlin there is a close cooperation between the Centre for Hip Resurfacing, the Department of Trauma Surgery and the Endoprosthetics Network with its experienced and specialised surgeons.
Methods:
Left
Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR)
Middle
Birmingham Mid-Head-Resection (BMHR)
Right
Metal on metal large diameter prosthesis
These three types of prostheses are part of a modular system that can be adapted to the age and activity of the patient and to pathological changes in the joint. All three have the same high quality and wear resistant metal on metal bearings.
Advantages over conventional prostheses:
Right hip: severe bone loss and leg shortening. Restoration of acetabulum and leg length by fixation of an acetabular cup with anchoring screws and bone grafting into the dysplastic hip (Dysplasia cup). Left hip: Standard resurfacing device.
With this method, in contrast to conventional prostheses, only the damaged surface parts of the hip joint are removed. The femoral head and femoral neck are conserved. The femoral head is capped with a metal cup which similar to the thin walled acetabular cup consists of a special cobalt-chrome-molybdenum alloy with a high carbon content. The manufacture and processing of this cast alloy is based on the metal on metal prostheses of Peter Ring (1964) and McKee- Farrar (1966) which in individual cases remained free from wear or signs of loosening over a period of thirty years.
Tests carried out with these prostheses indicated however that a high standard of precision of the components is a prerequisite for their longevity. At the time this was not routinely achievable so that the majority of the prostheses failed at an early stage. As the technical correlations were not recognised, metal on polyethylene articulation was chosen, and introduced for example, by Charnley (1958) with his total hip replacement prostheses.
The concept of hip resurfacing was first applied clinically from the mid-1970s into the early 1980s by Freeman, Wagner and Amstutz. The principle was followed in several other countries. The results were mostly disappointing as the high degree of wear of the synthetic acetabular cup through friction with the metal or ceramic head caused osteolysis and component loosening.
The reason for these early failures was the polyethylene used for the acetabular cup. The large femoral head caused extreme abrasion on contact with the rough polyethylene which set up a chain of biological reactions and resulted in bone loss and loosening. Tests done on femoral heads with cups indicated that the loosening of the prostheses was not a result of impaired blood supply of the femoral head.
Indications for the Mid Head Resection Prosthesis:
If extensive damage to the femoral head and neck has occurred or in cases of osteoporosis, where bone conserving prostheses cannot ensure long term success, there are also clear advantages in using the metal on metal joint articulation for conventional prostheses. By using the same acetabular cup used in resurfacing and with an appropriate modular head, risk of dislocation is greatly reduced and low levels of wear can also be achieved.
With older patients who tend to have an increasing lack of coordination, a weakening of the muscles and a higher risk of falls, this prosthesis can also be advantageous because it mostly prevents dislocation and thus further operations.
Also in those rare cases where a fracture of the femoral neck has occurred, the use of a modular femoral head and a prosthesis stem while retaining the acetabulum can restore the function of the hip joint. This ensures minimal wear and a large range of motion.
In joint replacement of the hip two developments offer significant advantages to the patient:
Arthritis secondary to dysplasia and osteotomy of the femur: Conventional stem and a cup with the new synthetic material (highly cross-linked polyethylene).
In our institution we have an Imageless Computer-Assisted Hip Navigation System at our disposal. In severe deformities the positioning of the components is easier, and as with the new aiming devices, smaller incisions (minimal invasive posterior approach) can be employed. The navigation supports the surgeon, but he is not replaced as in robotic surgery.
Further information is available at: