Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Indications and results of hip resurfacing

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The best indication for hip resurfacing is a young active patient with severe hip arthritis, good hip morphology and reasonable bone quality. With revision of either component for any reason as the endpoint, there were 68 revisions in our series of 3,095 consecutive Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHR) (1997–2009), including all diagnoses in all ages. This equates to a revision rate of 2.2% and survivorships of 99, 97 and 96% at five, ten and 13 years, respectively. In patients under 55 years with osteoarthritis, the survivorship is 99 and 98% at ten and 13 years. These results provide medium-term evidence that BHR when performed well in properly selected patients offers excellent outcomes and implant survivorship. Small changes to implant materials and design can affect joint function and survivorship significantly as seen from the withdrawal of certain resurfacing devices recently from clinical use. The clinical history of one device cannot be extrapolated to other devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P (1996) Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 329(Suppl):S89–S98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Joshi AB, Porter ML, Trail IA, Hunt LP, Murphy JC, Hardinge K (1993) Long-term results of Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(4):616–623

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McMinn DJW (2003) Development of metal/metal hip resurfacing. Hip Int 13:S41–S53

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daniel J, Pradhan C, Ziaee H, McMinn DJ (2008) A clinicoradiologic study of the Birmingham Mid-Head Resection device. Orthopedics 31(12 Suppl 2):124–128

    Google Scholar 

  5. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ (2004) Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:177–184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, LeDuff MJ, Gruen T, Amstutz HC (2004) Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 418:87–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA et al (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB (2005) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:167–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ (2007) The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years. An independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(11):1431–1438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Reito A, Puolakka T, Pajamäki J (2010) Birmingham hip resurfacing: five to eight year results. Int Orthop 2010 Jun 19. [Epub ahead of print]

  12. Ollivere B, Duckett S, August A, Porteous M (2010) The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: 5-year clinical and radiographic results from a District General Hospital. Int Orthop 34:631–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aulakh TS, Kuiper JH, Dixey J, Richardson JB (2010) Hip resurfacing for rheumatoid arthritis: independent assessment of 11-year results from an international register. Int Orthop 2010 May 25. [Epub ahead of print]

  14. Khan M, Kuiper JH, Edwards D, Robinson E, Richardson JB (2009) Birmingham hip arthroplasty: five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1044–1050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Annual report 2009 of the National Joint Replacement Registry of the Australian Orthopaedic Association (2010) http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/documents/aoanjrrreport_2010.pdf. Accessed 8 2010

  16. Jameson SS, Langton DJ, Nargol AV (2010) Articular surface replacement of the hip: a prospective single-surgeon series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(1):28–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 7th Annual report 2010 of the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (2010) http://www-new.njrcentre.org.uk/NjrCentre/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=QkPI7kk6B2E%3d&tabid=86&mid=523. Accessed 8 2010

  18. Long WT, Dastane M, Harris MJ, Wan Z, Dorr LD (2010) Failure of the Durom Metasul acetabular component. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(2):400–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Daniel J, Ziaee H, Kamali A, Pradhan C, Band T, McMinn DJ (2010) Ten-year results of a double-heat-treated metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(1):20–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Hallab NJ, Natu S, Nargol AV (2010) Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: a consequence of excess wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(1):38–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kishida Y, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Yamaguchi K, Yoshikawa H (2004) Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(2):185–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Myers GJ, Morgan D, McBryde CW, O’Dwyer K (2009) Does surgical approach influence component positioning with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing? Int Orthop 33:59–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shimmin AJ, Back D (2005) Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(4):463–464

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Carrothers AD, Gilbert RE, Jaiswal A, Richardson JB (2010) Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(10):1344–1350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC (2007) Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):735–741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Springer BD, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG (2003) Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:2156–2162

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Little CP, Ruiz AL, Harding IJ, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Murray DW, Athanasou NA (2005) Osteonecrosis in retrieved femoral heads after failed resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:320–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Simpson DJ, Ranson I, Mellon S, De Smet KA, Murray DW, Gill HS (2009) Operative technique to reduce intra-femoral pressure during hip resurfacing. http://www.ors.org/web/Transactions/55/2011.PDF

  29. Kwon YM, Glyn-Jones S, Simpson DJ, Kamali A, McLardy-Smith P, Gill HS, Murray DW (2010) Analysis of wear of retrieved metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants revised due to pseudotumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:356–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pitto RP, Malak S, Anderson IA (2009) Accuracy of a computer-assisted navigation system in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 33:391–395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Krüger S, Zambelli PY, Leyvraz PF, Jolles BM (2009) Computer-assisted placement technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: improvement in accuracy? Int Orthop 33:27–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Heisel C, Kleinhans JA, Menge M, Kretzer JP (2009) Ten different hip resurfacing systems: biomechanical analysis of design and material properties. Int Orthop 33:939–943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The institution of the authors (DJWM, JD, HZ and CP) receives funding from Smith and Nephew Orthopaedics UK, and DJWM is a paid consultant to Smith and Nephew Orthopaedics UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The McMinn Centre, 25 Highfield Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 3DP, UK

    D. J. W. McMinn, J. Daniel, H. Ziaee & C. Pradhan

Authors
  1. D. J. W. McMinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Daniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Ziaee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Pradhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Daniel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McMinn, D.J.W., Daniel, J., Ziaee, H. et al. Indications and results of hip resurfacing. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 231–237 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1148-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1148-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation