Skip to main content
. 2024 Jun 24;5(6):514–523. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.56.BJO-2023-0165.R1

Table II.

Baseline characteristics of 94 patients undergoing revision of a Birmingham metal-on-metal resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty by procedure type.

Characteristic Cup retention and dual-mobility Acetabular revision Overall p-value
N 53 41 94
Mean age, yrs (range) 68.3 (36 to 87) 62.0 (33 to 75) 65.5 (33 to 87) < 0.001*
Male:Female, n 27:26 14:27 41:53 0.047*
Mean time from last procedure, mths (range) 143.7 (75 to 277) 113.0 (59 to 191) 129.9 (59 to 277) < 0.001*
Primary implant type, n (%)
Birmingham Resurfacing 11 (20.8) 18 (43.9) 29 (38.9)
Synergy (Smith & Nephew)/Birmingham THA 40 (75.5) 22 (53.7) 62 (66.0)
SL Plus (Smith & Nephew) Stem/Birmingham THA 1 (1.9) 1 (2.4) 2 (2.1)
CPCS Stem (Smith & Nephew)/Birmingham THA 1 (1.9) 0 (0) 1 (1.1)
Preoperative MRI, n (%) 49 (92.5) 37 (90.2) 86 (91.5)
Collection on MRI, n (%) 45 (91.8) 26 (70.3) 71 (82.6) 0.009*
Mean maximum diameter of collection, cm (range) 6.5 (1.5 to 14.0) 5.9 (1.0 to 12.0) 6.3 (1.0 to 14.0) 0.455
*

Significant at 5% level, no adjustment for multiple testing.

Mann-Whitney U test.

Chi-squared test.

THA, total hip arthroplasty.