Hip resurfacing has been proposed as an alternative to traditional total hip arthroplasty in young, active patients. Much has been learned following the introduction of metal-on-metal resurfacing devices in the 1990s. The triad of a well-designed device, implanted accurately, in the correct patient has never been more critical than with these implants.

Following Food and Drug Administration approval in 2006, we studied the safety and effectiveness of one hip resurfacing device (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) at our hospital in a large, single-surgeon series. We report our early to mid–term results in 1333 cases followed for a mean of 4.3 years (2 to 5.7) using a prospective, observational registry. The mean patient age was 53.1 years (12 to 84); 70% were male and 91% had osteoarthritis. Complications were few, including no dislocations, no femoral component loosening, two femoral neck fractures (0.15%), one socket loosening (0.08%), three deep infections (0.23%), and three cases of metallosis (0.23%). There were no destructive pseudotumours.

Overall survivorship at up to 5.7 years was 99.2%. Aseptic survivorship in males under the age of 50 was 100%. We believe this is the largest United States series of a single surgeon using a single resurfacing system.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B (1 Suppl A):10–13.

We report the long-term survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) in patients aged < 50 years at operation, and explore the factors affecting survival. Between 1997 and 2006, a total of 447 BHRs were implanted in 393 patients (mean age 41.5 years (14.9 to 49.9)) by one designing surgeon. The mean follow-up was 10.1 years (5.2 to 14.7), with no loss to follow-up. In all, 16 hips (3.6%) in 15 patients were revised, giving an overall cumulative survival of 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.7 to 98.3) at ten years and 94.1% (95% CI 84.9 to 97.3) at 14 years. Using aseptic revision as the endpoint, the survival for men with primary osteoarthritis (n = 195) was 100% (95% CI 100 to 100) at both ten years and 14 years, and in women with primary osteoarthritis (n = 109) it was 96.1% (95% CI 90.1 to 99.9) at ten years and 91.2% (95% CI 68.6 to 98.7) at 14 years. Female gender (p = 0.047) and decreasing femoral head size (p = 0.044) were significantly associated with an increased risk of revision. The median Oxford hip score (OHS, modified as a percentage with 100% indicating worst outcome) at last follow-up was 4.2% (46 of 48; interquartile range (IQR) 0% to 24%) and the median University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score was 6.0 (IQR 5 to 8). Men had significantly better OHS (p = 0.02) and UCLA scores (p = 0.01) than women. The BHR provides excellent survival and functional results in men into the second decade, with good results achieved in appropriately selected women.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1172–7.

Recent events have highlighted the importance of implant design for survival and wear-related complications following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. The mid-term survival of the most widely used implant, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), has been described by its designers. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year survival and patient-reported functional outcome of the BHR from an independent centre.

In this cohort of 554 patients (646 BHRs) with a mean age of 51.9 years (16.5 to 81.5) followed for a mean of eight years (1 to 12), the survival and patient-reported functional outcome depended on gender and the size of the implant. In female hips (n = 267) the ten-year survival was 74% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 91), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 7%, the mean Oxford hip score (OHS) was 43 (sd 8) and the mean UCLA activity score was 6.4 (sd 2). In male hips (n = 379) the ten-year survival was 95% (95% CI 92.0 to 97.4), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 1.7%, the mean OHS was 45 (sd 6) and the mean UCLA score was 7.6 (sd 2). In the most demanding subgroup, comprising male patients aged < 50 years treated for primary osteoarthritis, the survival was 99% (95% CI 97 to 100).

This study supports the ongoing use of resurfacing in young active men, who are a subgroup of patients who tend to have problems with conventional THR. In contrast, the results in women have been poor and we do not recommend metal-on-metal resurfacing in women. Continuous follow-up is recommended because of the increasing incidence of pseudotumour with the passage of time.

We sought to establish the incidence of joint failure secondary to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in a large, three surgeon, multicentre study involving 4226 hips with a follow-up of 10 to 142 months. Three implants were studied: the Articular Surface Replacement; the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing; and the Conserve Plus. Retrieved implants underwent analysis using a co-ordinate measuring machine to determine volumetric wear. There were 58 failures associated with ARMD. The median chromium and cobalt concentrations in the failed group were significantly higher than in the control group (p < 0.001). Survival analysis showed a failure rate in the patients with Articular Surface Replacement of 9.8% at five years, compared with < 1% at five years for the Conserve Plus and 1.5% at ten years for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. Two ARMD patients had relatively low wear of the retrieved components. Increased wear from the metal-on-metal bearing surface was associated with an increased rate of failure secondary to ARMD. However, the extent of tissue destruction at revision surgery did not appear to be dose-related to the volumetric wear.

We present the early clinical and radiological results of Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) resurfacings in 214 hips (192 patients) with a mean follow-up of 43 months (30 to 57). The mean age of the patients was 56 years (28 to 74) and 85 hips (40%) were in 78 women.

The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 (11 to 81) to 95 (27 to 100) at two years and the mean University of California, Los Angeles activity score from 3.9 (1 to 10) to 7.4 (2 to 10) in the same period. Narrowing of the neck (to a maximum of 9%) was noted in 124 of 209 hips (60%). There were 12 revisions (5.6%) involving four (1.9%) early fractures of the femoral neck and two (0.9%) episodes of collapse of the femoral head secondary to avascular necrosis. Six patients (2.8%) had failure related to metal wear debris. The overall survival for our series was 93% (95% confidence interval 80 to 98) and 89% (95% confidence interval 82 to 96) for hips with acetabular components smaller than 56 mm in diameter.

The ASR implant has a lower diametrical clearance and a subhemispherical acetabular component when compared with other more frequently implanted metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. These changes may contribute to the higher failure rate than in other series, compared with other designs. Given our poor results with the small components we are no longer implanting the smaller size.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is commonly performed for osteoarthritis in young active patients. We have observed cystic or solid masses, which we have called inflammatory pseudotumours, arising around these devices. They may cause soft-tissue destruction with severe symptoms and a poor outcome after revision surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of and risk factors for pseudotumours that are serious enough to require revision surgery.

Since 1999, 1419 metal-on-metal hip resurfacings have been implanted by our group in 1224 patients; 1.8% of the patients had a revision for pseudotumour. In this series the Kaplan-Meier cumulative revision rate for pseudotumour increased progressively with time. At eight years, in all patients, it was 4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 5.8). Factors significantly associated with an increase in revision rate were female gender (p < 0.001), age under 40 (p = 0.003), small components (p = 0.003), and dysplasia (p = 0.019), whereas implant type was not (p = 0.156). These factors were inter-related, however, and on fitting a Cox proportional hazard model only gender (p = 0.002) and age (p = 0.024) had a significant independent influence on revision rate; size nearly reached significance (p = 0.08). Subdividing the cohort according to significant factors, we found that the revision rate for pseudotumours in men was 0.5% (95% CI 0 to 1.1) at eight years wheras in women over 40 years old it was 6% (95% CI 2.3 to 10.1) at eight years and in women under 40 years it was 13.1% at six years (95% CI 0 to 27) (p < 0.001).

We recommend that resurfacings are undertaken with caution in women, particularly those under 40 years of age but they remain a good option in young men. Further work is required to understand the aetiology of pseudotumours so that this complication can be avoided.

We reviewed the results at nine to 13 years of 125 total hip replacements in 113 patients using the monoblock uncemented Morscher press-fit acetabular component. The mean age at the time of operation was 56.9 years (36 to 74). The mean clinical follow-up was 11 years (9.7 to 13.5) and the mean radiological follow-up was 9.4 years (7.7 to 13.1). Three hips were revised, one immediately for instability, one for excessive wear and one for deep infection.

No revisions were required for aseptic loosening. A total of eight hips (7.0%) had osteolytic lesions greater than 1 cm, in four around the acetabular component (3.5%). One required bone grafting behind a well-fixed implant. The mean wear rate was 0.11 mm/year (0.06 to 0.78) and was significantly higher in components with a steeper abduction angle.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves at 13 years showed survival of 96.8% (95% confidence interval 90.2 to 99.0) for revision for any cause and of 95.7% (95% confidence interval 88.6 to 98.4) for any acetabular re-operation.