Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Abstract

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the gold standard in the treatment of advanced hip osteoarthritis. However, hip resurfacing (HR) arthroplasty may present a viable alternative. The aim of this study was to compare complications, implant survivorship, and functional outcomes between HR and THA, to assess HR as a valid and safe alternative to THA. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English, comparing clinical outcomes and complications between HR and THA. A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library, following the PRISMA 2020 statement, from January 1, 2015 to November 30, 2023. A meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4 to compare the rates of revisions, dislocations, infection, aseptic loosening and pseudotumor, and the clinical outcomes between the two groups. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the risk of bias. A total of 8 RCT were included, involving 844 patients (387 hips for HR group and 469 hips for THA group). The mean follow-up was 7.72 years. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for UCLA and WOMAC score, revision rate, infection, aseptic loosening and pseudotumor (all p > 0.05), while the dislocation rate was significantly lower in the HR group (p = 0.04). HR is a safe and effective alternative to THA. However, several factors are involved to reduce the complication rate and achieve high implant survival.