In the early 2000s hip resurfacing became an established bone conserving hip arthroplasty option particularly for the fit and active patient cohort. The performance of second-generation metal-on-metal bearings had led to the reintroduction of hip resurfacing. The Birmingham Hip resurfacing (BHR) was introduced in 1997. This was followed by a number of different designs of the hip resurfacing. The Durom hip resurfacing was introduced in 2001. These two designs had different metallurgical properties, design parameters particularly clearance and different implantation techniques. Data from joint registries show that both prosthesis perform well. Our objective was to perform a retrospective survival analysis comparing the Birmingham to the Durom hip resurfacing and analyse the mode of failures of the cases revised.Introduction
Objectives