Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip (MoMHR)
has enjoyed a resurgence in the last decade, but is now again in question
as a routine option for osteoarthritis of the hip. Proponents of
hip resurfacing suggest that its survival is superior to that of
conventional hip replacement (THR), and that hip resurfacing is
less invasive, is easier to revise than THR, and provides superior
functional outcomes. Our argument serves to illustrate that none
of these proposed advantages have been realised and new and unanticipated
serious complications, such as pseudotumors, have been associated
with the procedure. As such, we feel that the routine use of MoMHR
is not justified. Cite this article:
