Abstract
Introduction: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is increasing in popularity, particularly in young and active patients. One unique advantage is retention of upper femoral bone stock with the hypothesis of easy revision should the resurfacing fail. The pupose of this study was to document the complexity or otherwise of our early experience with failed hip resurfacing.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all the patients who had revision surgery for failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty at our institution.
Results: Eleven patients with mean age of 52.8 years underwent revision of resurfacing at a mean time of 21.2 months following primary surgery. Revision was performed for deep infection in 4, cup loosening in 4 and 1 patient each for femoral neck fracture, avascular necrosis, and femoral loosening. For the 4 patients with cup loosening, the acetabular component was revised in 3 using a dysplasia Birmingham cup while 1 patient had both components revised. Of the 4 patients with deep infection, 3 had both components revised as one-stage revision with cemented components and 1 patient had a pseudarthosis. For the 3 cases with femoral loosening, neck fracture or avascular necrosis only the femoral component was revised using a cemented stem. Bone grafting was performed in 1 patient who had revision for loosening of acetabular cup with protrusio.
Conclusion: Acetabular failure appears to be equally common as femoral failure in resurfacing arthroplasty. Revision of both aseptic and septic failure appears to be relatively straightforward with primary implants used in all cases.
Correspondence should be addressed to Mr John Hodgkinson, BHS, c/o BOA, The Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE.
