Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Orthopedics
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 817689, 7 pages
Research Article

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients

Memorial Bone & Joint Research Foundation, 1140 Business Center Drive No. 101, Houston, TX 77043, USA

Received 3 February 2015; Accepted 5 May 2015

Academic Editor: Panagiotis Korovessis

Copyright © 2015 Marius Dettmer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Hip resurfacing has been considered a good treatment option for younger, active osteoarthritis patients. However, there are several identified issues concerning risk for neck fractures and issues related to current metal-on-metal implant designs. Neck-preserving short-stem implants have been discussed as a potential alternative, but it is yet unclear which method is better suited for younger adults. We compared hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome scores (HOOS) from a young group of patients (, age 48.9 ± 6.1 years) who had received hip resurfacing (HR) with a cohort of patients (, age 48.2 ± 6.6 years) who had received neck-preserving, short-stem implant total hip arthroplasty (THA). Additionally, durations for both types of surgery were compared. HOOS improved significantly preoperatively to last followup (>1 year) in both groups (, ); there were no group effects or interactions. Surgery duration was significantly longer for resurfacing (104.4 min ± 17.8) than MiniHip surgery (62.5 min ± 14.8), , , . The neck-preserving short-stem approach may be preferable to resurfacing due to the less challenging surgery, similar outcome, and controversy regarding resurfacing implant designs.