A total of 219 hips in 192 patients aged between
18 and 65 years were randomised to 28-mm metal-on-metal uncemented
total hip replacements (THRs, 107 hips) or hybrid hip resurfacing
(HR, 112 hips). At a mean follow-up of eight years (6.6 to 9.3)
there was no significant difference between the THR and HR groups
regarding rate of revision (4.0% (4 of 99) Cite this article:
The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy
of registration and the precision of the resection volume in navigated
hip arthroscopy for cam-type femoroacetabular impingement, using
imageless and image-based registration. A virtual cam lesion was
defined in 12 paired cadaver hips and randomly assigned to either
imageless or image-based (three-dimensional (3D) fluoroscopy) navigated
arthroscopic head–neck osteochondroplasty. The accuracy of patient–image
registration for both protocols was evaluated and post-operative
imaging was performed to evaluate the accuracy of the
We have undertaken a prospective, randomised study to compare conservation of acetabular bone after total hip replacement and resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. We randomly assigned 210 hips to one of the two treatment groups. Uncemented, press-fit acetabular components were used for both. No significant difference was found in the mean diameter of acetabular implant inserted in the groups (54.74 mm for total hip replacement and 54.90 mm for resurfacing arthroplasty). In seven resurfacing procedures (6.8%), the surgeon used a larger size of component in order to match the corresponding diameter of the femoral component. With resurfacing arthroplasty, conservation of bone is clearly advantageous on the femoral side. Our study has shown that, with a specific design of acetabular implant and by following a careful surgical technique, removal of bone on the acetabular side is comparable with that of total hip replacement.