PROMs Data
- Products
- ADEPT® Hip Resurfacing System
- PROMs Data
The mean postoperative hip score for hip resurfacing is reported to be in the ‘excellent’ category in numerous published studies4,6,33,34,35.
Based on up-to-date systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published in 2019, MoM hip resurfacing is associated with superior outcomes when compared to THR4. The review includes findings such as decreased thigh pain6, less limp with walking6, improved function14, superior UCLA activity scores36, 37, quality of life36,37 and return to manual labour work36, moderate/heavy activity37, sport36 and long distance walking and running6.
Excellent results in well-selected patients
- Oxford scores for hip resurfacing patients were high compared to total hip replacement patients
- WOMAC scores indicated excellent function
- The UCLA Activity Scale showed that patients were regularly participating in moderate activity, with 10%
regularly participating in high impact sports - Metal ion levels just 14% (cobalt) and 19% (chromium) of the limit used for the ASR recall and published
guidelines by the MHRA (cobalt 119 nmol/L, chromium 135 nmol/L) - No failures associated with wear or increased metal ions in the resurfacing group
Patient reported outcomes recorded by the NJR, including the Oxford Hip Score and EQ-5D are higher for ADEPT® Hip Resurfacing than THR, however not statistically different when the NJR case-mix adjustment is applied31.
In other words, in terms of health gain and patient satisfaction following a hip operation, hip resurfacing is as equally valuable an operation as total hip replacement, which is considered to be one of the most successful and cost-effective interventions in medicine.
Patient satisfaction for the ADEPT® Hip Resurfacing is over 95%
References
4. Hellman MD, Ford MC, Barrack RL. Is there evidence to support an indication for surface replacement arthroplasty? A systematic review. Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B (1 supple A): 32-40.
6. Barrack RL, Ruh EL, Berend ME, Della Valle CJ, Engh A Jr, Parvizi J, Clohisy JC, Nunley RM. Do Young, Active Patients Perceive Advantages After Surface Replacement Compared to Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471: 3803–3813
14. Girard J, Miletic B, Deny A, Migaud H, Fouilleron N. Can patients return to high-impact physical activities after hip resurfacing? A prospective study. International orthopaedics. 2013; 37(6):1019-24.
30. NEC Software Solutions (UK) Limited. NJR Implant Summary Report for ADEPT® Hip Resurfacing. February 2022. Ref: Summary.Report.HP_Head_Adept Resurfacing Head_All.18/02/2022.
31. NEC Software Solutions (UK) Limited. NJR Implant Summary Report for ADEPT® Hip Resurfacing. February 2022. Ref: Summary.Report.HP_Head_Adept Resurfacing Head (Sizes 46-58 only)_All.18/02/2022.
32. MatOrtho internal data, February 2022.
33. Holland JP, Langton DJ, Hashmi M. Ten-year clinical, radiological and metal ion analysis of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: from a single, non-designer surgeon. JBJS- Br, 2012. 94(4):471.
34. Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years: An independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2007; 89-B:1431-1438.
35. Khan M, Kuiper JH, Edwards D, Robinson E, Richardson JB. Birmingham Hip arthroplasty five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. J Arthroplasty, 2008. Article in press. 36 Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2006; 88-B: 592-600.
37. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, Lusignan D. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing MoM total hip arthroplasty and MoM total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. Hip Intl. 2006; 16 (Suppl 4): 73-81.
38. Plant JGA, Prosser GH, Burston BJ, Edmondston SJ, Yates PJ. Mid-Term Review of ADEPT Metal-On-Metal Hip Prosthesis. Functional, Radiological and Metal Ion Analysis. Open Journal of Orthopaedics, 2014, 4: 38-43.
39. Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP). Latest ODEP ratings can be found at www.odep.org.uk
Resources
ADEPT® Clinical Rationale
ADEPT® Flyer
ADEPT® Operative Technique
Download Now
Fill in your details below to download the ADEPT® Clinical Rationale
Additional Text
Download Now
Fill in your details below to download the ADEPT® Flyer.
Additional Text
Download Now
Fill in your details below to download the ADEPT® Operative Technique
Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP)
The Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) was set up to monitor the NICE guidance on primary hip implants in 2002 and hip resurfacing in 2004. The Panel provides on-going assessment of hip implants to benchmark both hip femoral stems and hip acetabular cups against the NICE guidance, providing a benchmark rating for implant survivorship and data submission quality.