Management of pseudotumours associated with MoM THA can be difficult and complications are frequent. The functional outcome of patients after revision surgery may be suboptimal. The objective of this study was to assess our experience with revisions of failed MoM THA due to pseudotumours.

78 hips were diagnosed with pseudotumours in 70 patients following metal-on-metal hip replacements. Of these, 68 MoM THA were revised in 62 patients. Pre operative symptoms, radiographic analysis, metal ion levels, MRI results, intra-operative findings, WOMAC scores, the satisfaction level and the complication rate were recorded.

Five patients had a resurfacing arthroplasty as their primary implants while the remaining 63 hips in 57 patients had MoM THA of different brands. The average time between the primary and revision surgery was 69 months (range 15–120). The average age at revision was 59 years (43–87). The mean follow-up was 24 months (range 2–73). 36 patients had minimal one year follow-up. Most lesions consisted of cystic changes and solid lesions were observed in 19 patients. In 57 hips, the pseudotumours were located posteriorly or postero-laterally around the greater trochanter. Intra operatively, muscle necrosis was observed in 15(22%) patients. Most THA cases demonstrated wear and corrosion at the head neck junction of the femoral implants. Thirty-five patients (44.9%) had greater than 50 degrees of cup abduction, including 10 patients (12.8%) with an abduction angle greater than 60 degrees. The average pre operative and postoperative Co ion levels were 27.46 ug/L (range 0.36–145.6) and 2.46 (range 0.4–12.48), respectively. Post revision, a total of 10 hips (14.7%) sustained a dislocation, with seven (10.3%) of them experiencing recurrent dislocations. In 8/10 hips, the femoral head size was 36mm or greater. Revision for dislocation occurred in seven(10.3%) patients. Three(4.4%) deep and one(1.47%) superficial infections occurred and deep infections were re-operated. One(1.47%) fracture of the greater trochanter and one (1.47%) psoas tendinitis did not need revision. Therefore, a total of 10 patients (14.7%) were reoperated. 6 revisions for instability were performed in the first 34 patients, while 1 were done in the last 34 patients. At one year post revision surgery, the mean WOMAC score was 19.68 (range 0–48). In comparison, the mean WOMAC score of the same patients one year after their primary surgery was 8.1 (0–63). Patient satisfaction level of patients one year post revision surgery was 7.61 (range 5–10) compared to 4.15 (range 0–7) pre-revision one.

The complication rate after revision of pseudotumours is high. Most re revisions occurred secondary to instability despite the use of larger femoral heads. The functional outcome at one year post revision seems to be lower than that seen after primary THA but similar to other revisions in the literature. Experience in the management of these patients may reduce the complication rate.

Purpose: Surface replacement arthroplasty is being increasingly offered as the treatment of choice to young and active patients with hip arthritis with proposed advantages including bone conservation and better functional outcome. Excellent outcome has been reported in the few recent short-term clinical series of surface replacement arthroplasty. However they have an inbuilt patient selection bias. There are no direct prospective randomized studies comparing the newer generation of surface replacement arthroplasty with conventional total hip arthroplasty. Our study addresses this issue.

Method: 210 hips in 194 patients were randomized to receive either an uncemented total hip arthroplasty or a hybrid metal-on-metal surface replacement arthroplasty. Complications, functional outcomes, along with patient satisfaction and radiographic evaluation were compared at a minimum of two years follow up.

Results: Patients in both groups demonstrated a very high satisfaction rate and achieved similar functional scores. Four dislocations occurred in the THA group (one needing acetabular cup revision) and none in the SRA group. There were no femoral neck fractures in the surface replacement arthroplasty group. However, two surface replacement arthroplasty cases underwent revision for late head collapse and one needed a femoral neck osteoplasty for persisting femoro-acetabular impingement. Better biomechanical restoration was attained with surface replacement arthroplasty. All the components were considered to be stable after an average follow up of 45 months.

Conclusion: Although surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip offer similar patient satisfaction, functional outcome and complication rate as an uncemented total hip arthroplasty in a young and active group of patients, different complications were associated to each procedure. Better patient selection could avoid some of the complications in the surface replacement arthroplasty group. One main advantage that remains for the surface arthroplasty technique it is the proximal femoral bone stock preservation. However, long term survival analysis is necessary to determine the true advantage of these implants over total hip arthroplasty.