The Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip resurfacing arthroplasty has a failure rate of 12.0% at five years, compared with 4.3% for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR). We analysed 66 ASR and 64 BHR explanted metal-on-metal hip replacements with the aim of understanding their mechanisms of failure. We measured the linear wear rates of the acetabular and femoral components and analysed the clinical cause of failure, pre-revision blood metal ion levels and orientation of the acetabular component.

There was no significant difference in metal ion levels (chromium, p = 0.82; cobalt, p = 0.40) or head wear rate (p = 0.14) between the two groups. The ASR had a significantly increased rate of wear of the acetabular component (p = 0.03) and a significantly increased occurrence of edge loading (p < 0.005), which can be attributed to differences in design between the ASR and BHR. The effects of differences in design on the in vivo wear rates are discussed: these may provide an explanation as to why the ASR is more sensitive to suboptimal positioning than the BHR.

We measured the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components in 45 patients (33 men, 12 women) with a mean age of 53.4 years (30 to 74) who had undergone revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. Three-dimensional CT was used to measure the inclination and version of the acetabular component, femoral version and the horizontal femoral offset, and the linear wear of the removed acetabular components was measured using a roundness machine.

We found that acetabular version and combined version of the acetabular and femoral components were weakly positively correlated with the rate of wear. The acetabular inclination angle was strongly positively correlated with the rate of wear. Femoral version was weakly negatively correlated with the rate of wear. Application of a threshold of > 5 μm/year for the rate of wear in order to separate the revisions into low or high wearing groups showed that more high wearing components were implanted outside Lewinnek’s safe zone, but that this was mainly due to the inclination of the acetabular component, which was the only parameter that significantly differed between the groups.

We were unable to show that excess version of the acetabular component alone or combined with femoral version was associated with an increase in the rate of wear based on our assessment of version using CT.

This study compared component wear rates and pre-revision blood metal ions levels in two groups of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: hip resurfacing and modular total hip replacement (THR).

There was no significant difference in the median rate of linear wear between the groups for both acetabular (p = 0.4633) and femoral (p = 0.0872) components. There was also no significant difference in the median linear wear rates when failed hip resurfacing and modular THR hips of the same type (ASR and Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR)) were compared.

Unlike other studies of well-functioning hips, there was no significant difference in pre-revision blood metal ion levels between hip resurfacing and modular THR.

Edge loading was common in both groups, but more common in the resurfacing group (67%) than in the modular group (57%). However, this was not significant (p = 0.3479). We attribute this difference to retention of the neck in resurfacing of the hip, leading to impingement-type edge loading. This was supported by visual evidence of impingement on the femur.

These findings show that failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and modular THRs have similar component wear rates and are both associated with raised pre-revision blood levels of metal ions.