Introduction: Total hip replacements (THR) with the first generation metal-on-metal articulation were abandoned in 1970s in favour of metal-on-polyethylene articulation. Osteolysis due to polyethylene wear particles renewed the interest in metal-on-metal articulations. The second generation had improved clearance, metal hardness and reproducible surfaces. We describe the 10-year outcome of 63 THR with Metasul metal-on-metal articulation.

Methods: From 1995 to 1996, 86 patients (90 hips) underwent THR with Metasul articulation and cemented CF-30 femoral stem. Of these, 55 hips had a cemented Stuhmer-Weber-Allopro cup and 35 hips had an uncemented Allofit cup. Eleven patients (12 hips) died and five patients (6 hips) were not available for clinical evaluation. However all had been contacted and it was known that the hip was not painful and had not been revised. Nine patients were lost to follow up. Thirty nine hips in cemented group and 24 hips in uncemented group had clinical, radiological and Oxford hip score (OHS) at minimum of 10-years follow-up after the operation.

Results: The minimum length of follow up was 10-years with an average of 10.8 years. The average OHS at 10 years for the cemented group was 23 (range 12 – 42) and for the hybrid group was 20.3 (range 12 – 37). Five out of 63 (8%) hips had revision surgery. Two revisions (3%) were performed because of infection, 1 was revised (1.5%) because of unexplained pain and suspected metallosis and 2 were revised (3%) for suspected aseptic acetabular cup loosening.

Conclusion: In comparison with the outcome of first generation metal-on-metal bearing, the hips in our study had lower rate of revision due to acetabular wear and loosening. This is the first study to show that the Metasul articulation has good outcome over a 10-year period. The survivorship is 97% with aseptic loosening as the endpoint for revision surgery.

Hip resurfacing is a bone-conserving procedure with respect to proximal femoral resection, but there is debate in the literature as to whether the same holds true for the acetabulum. We have investigated whether the Birmingham hip resurfacing conserves acetabular bone.

Between 1998 and 2005, 500 Birmingham hip resurfacings were performed by two surgeons. Between 1996 and 2005 they undertook 700 primary hip replacements, with an uncemented acetabular component. These patients formed the clinical material to compare acetabular component sizing. The Birmingham hip resurfacing group comprised 350 hips in men and 150 hips in women. The uncemented total hip replacement group comprised 236 hips in men and 464 hips in women. Age- and gender-matched analysis of a cohort of patients for the sizes of the acetabular components required for the two types of replacement was also undertaken. Additionally, an analysis of the sizes of the components used by each surgeon was performed.

For age-matched women, the mean outside diameter of the Birmingham hip resurfacing acetabular components was 2.03 mm less than that of the acetabular components in the uncemented total hip replacements (p < 0.0001). In similarly matched men there was no significant difference (p = 0.77). A significant difference was also found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for Birmingham hip resurfacing for both men (p = 0.0015) and women (p = 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for uncemented total hip replacement in either men or women (p = 0.06 and p = 0.14, respectively). This suggests that variations in acetabular preparation also influence acetabular component size in hip resurfacing.