The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to determine whether the five-year results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in Canada justified the continued use of HRA; and second, to identify whether greater refinement of patient selection was warranted. This was a retrospective cohort study that involved a review of 2773 HRAs performed between January 2001 and December 2008 at 11 Canadian centres. Cox's proportional hazards models were used to analyse the predictors of failure of HRA. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to predict the cumulative survival rate at five years. The factors analysed included age, gender, body mass index, pre-operative hip pathology, surgeon's experience, surgical approach, implant sizes and implant types. The most common modes of failure were also analysed. The 2773 HRAs were undertaken in 2450 patients: 2127 in men and 646 in women. The mean age at operation was 50.5 years (sd 8.72; 18 to 82) and mean follow-up was 3.4 years (sd 2.1; 2.0 to 10.1). At the last follow-up a total of 101 HRAs (3.6%) required revision. Using revision for all causes of failure as the endpoint, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a cumulative survival of 96.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.1 to 96.9) at five years. With regard to gender, the five-year overall survival was 97.4% in men (95% CI 97.1 to 97.7) and 93.6% in women (95% CI 92.6 to 94.6). Female gender, smaller femoral components, specific implant types and a diagnosis of childhood hip problems were associated with higher rates of failure. The most common cause of failure was fracture of the femoral neck, followed by loosening of the femoral component. The failure rates of HRA at five years justify the ongoing use of this technique in men. Female gender is an independent predictor of failure, and a higher failure rate at five years in women leads the authors to recommend this technique only in exceptional circumstances for women.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
75% Article relates to my practice (3/4)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/4)
25% Undecided (1/4)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

75% Yes (3/4)
0% No (0/4)
25% Undecided (1/4)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/4)
100% No (4/4)
0% Undecided (0/4)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/4)
25% Level 2 (1/4)
50% Level 3 (2/4)
25% Level 4 (1/4)
0% Level 5 (0/4)