Do hip resurfacing and short hip stem arthroplasties differ from conventional hip stem replacement regarding impingement-free range of motion?

Abstract

Total hip joint replacement (THR) is clinically well-established. In this context, the resulting range of motion (ROM) is crucial for patient satisfaction when performing joint movements. However, the ROM for THR with different bone preserving strategies (short hip stem and hip resurfacing) raises the question of whether the ROM is comparable with conventional hip stems. Therefore, this computer-based study aimed to investigate the ROM and type of impingement for different implant systems. An established framework with computer-aided design 3D models based on magnetic resonance imaging data of 19 patients with hip osteoarthritis was used to analyse the ROM for three different implant systems (conventional hip stem vs. short hip stem vs. hip resurfacing) during typical joint movements. Our results revealed that all three designs led to mean maximum flexion higher than 110°. However, hip resurfacing showed less ROM (-5% against conventional and -6% against short hip stem). No significant differences were observed between the conventional and short hip stem during maximum flexion and internal rotation. Contrarily, a significant difference was detected between the conventional hip stem and hip resurfacing during internal rotation (p = 0.003). The ROM of the hip resurfacing was lower than the conventional and short hip stem during all three movements. Furthermore, hip resurfacing shifted the impingement type to implant-to-bone impingement compared with the other implant designs. The calculated ROMs of the implant systems achieved physiological levels during maximum flexion and internal rotation. However, bone impingement was more likely during internal rotation with increasing bone preservation. Despite the larger head diameter of hip resurfacing, the ROM examined was substantially lower than that of conventional and short hip stem.

Keywords: hip joint replacement; impingement; implant design; range of motion; resurfacing.