Breaking Barriers: Addressing Gender Disparities in Hip Resurfacing Surgery Access in the United States

Document Type : In Brief

Authors

Orthopedic Research Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mashhad University of Medical sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Second-generation large-diameter head hip resurfacing (HR) arthroplasty has gained popularity in 
terms of its potential for minimal wear and the preservation of proximal femoral bone stock. HR faces 
challenges, such as increased hip fracture rates and adverse reactions to m etal detritus, despite the 
fact that over one million metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties have been performed globally. FDA 
issued warnings in 2011 and 2016 regarding higher failure rates in women and categorized MoM 
implants as high-risk, influencing U.S. surgeons to limit HR in women. Conversely, European and 
Australian registries report 6.4% to 54.4% of HR procedures are performed on women. Addressing 
concerns via targeted follow-ups and age-specific recommendations can help provide equitable access 
to advanced medical treatments.
 Level of evidence: V

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Dhawan R, Young DA, Van Eemeren A, Shimmin A. Birmingham hip resurfacing at 20 years. Bone Joint J. 2023; 105-B (9):946-952. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.105B9.BJJ-2022-0713.R2.
  2. Ponniah HS, Logishetty K, Edwards TC, Singer GC. Survivorship and risk factors for revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a long-term follow-up study. Bone Jt Open. 2023; 4(11):853-858. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.411.BJO-2023-0084.R1.
  3. Mancino F, Finsterwald MA, Jones CW, Prosser GH, Yates PJ.

 

Metal-on-Metal Hips: Ten-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of the ADEPT Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing and Modular Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Clin Med.2023; 12(3):889. doi: 10.3390/jcm12030889.

  1. Van Der Straeten C. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients: international high-volume centres’ report on the outcome of 11,382 metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties in patients⩽ 50 years at surgery. Hip Int.2022; 32(3):353-362. doi: 10.1177/1120700020957354.
  2. Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(7):847-51. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B7.20213.
  3. Ford MC, Hellman MD, Kazarian GS, Clohisy JC, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. Five to ten-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant in the US: a single institution’s experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(21):1879-1887. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01525.
  4. Ford MC, Hellman MD, Kazarian GS, Clohisy JC, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. Five to ten-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant in the US: a single institution’s experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2018; 100(21):1879-1887. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01525.
  5. Berge DV, Lizardi J, Weinerman J, Shittu AA, Constantinescu D, Yakkanti R. The 50 most-cited articles regarding hip resurfacing. Arthroplast Today. 2022:17:20-26. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.06.008.
  6. Hinsch A, Vettorazzi E, Morlock MM, Rüther W, Amling M, Zustin J. Sex differences in the morphological failure patterns following hip resurfacing arthroplasty. BMC Med. 2011:9:113. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-113.
  7. Food and Drug Administration. MedWatch. Evaluation of sex specific data in medical devices. Available at : https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/evaluation-sex-specific-data-medical-device-clinical-studies-guidance-industry-and-food-and-drug. Accessed August, 2014.
  8. Food and Drug Administration. MedWatch .Effectiveness of Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/metal-metal-hip-implants/effectiveness-metal-metal-hip-implants#:~:text=Metal%2Don%2DMetal%20Resurfacing%20Hip%20Systems&text=These%20include%20ease%20of%20revision,for%20some%20categories%20of%20patients. Accessed March 15, 2019.
  9. Girard J, Epinette JA, Martinot P, Dartus J, resurfaçage hanche France G. French hip resurfacing registry: a study of 1650 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res.2022; 108(1):103087. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.10308.
  10. Deere K, Whitehouse MR, Kunutsor SK, Sayers A, Mason J, Blom AW. How long do revised and multiply revised hip replacements last? A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022; 4(7):e468-79. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00097-2.
  11. Hip Resurfacing Information.National Registries.2023 Australian OANJRR-National Joint Replacement Registry. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/1579982/AOA_NJRR_AR23.pdf/c3bcc83b-5590-e034-4ad8-802e4ad8bf5b?t=1695887126627. Accessed February 26, 2024.
  12. Seppänen M, Karvonen M, Virolainen P, et al. Poor 10-year survivorship of hip resurfacing arthroplasty: 5,098 replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2016; 87(6):554-559. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1246316.
  13. Jelsma J, Van Kuijk SM, Spekenbrink-Spooren A, Grimm B, Heyligers IC, Schotanus MG. Outcome of revised metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a Dutch arthroplasty register study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022; 142(12):4025-32. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04257-5.
  14. Al-Jabri T, Ridha M, McCulloch RA, et al. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: Past, present and future. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2023:15:77745. doi: 10.52965/001c.77745.
  15. Van Loon J, De Graeff JJ, Sierevelt IN, et al. Revision in Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Ceramic-on-Polyethylene Bearing in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with Press-fit Cups: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Different Methodological Study Designs. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2022; 10(11):916-936. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2022.59354.2933.
  16. Gautam D, Pande A, Malhotra R. Fatal cobalt cardiomyopathy following revision total hip arthroplasty–a brief report with review of literature. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2019; 7(4):379-383.

 

 

 

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 12, Issue 11
November 2024
Pages 810-812

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 June 2024
  • Revise Date: 17 September 2024
  • Accept Date: 31 August 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics