Joint replacement of the hip and knee remain very satisfactory operations. They are, however, expensive. The actual manufacturing of the implant represents only 30% of the final cost, while sales and marketing represent 40%. Recently, the patents on many well established and successful implants have expired. Companies have started producing and distributing implants that purport to replicate existing implants with good long-term results.

The aims of this paper are to assess the legality, the monitoring and cost saving implications of such generic implants. We also assess how this might affect the traditional orthopaedic implant companies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:892–900.

We review the history and literature of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Resurfacing and the science behind it continues to evolve. Recent results, particularly from the national arthroplasty registers, have spread disquiet among both surgeons and patients. A hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not a total hip replacement, but should perhaps be seen as a means of delaying it. The time when hip resurfacing is offered to a patient may be different from that for a total hip replacement. The same logic can apply to the timing of revision surgery. Consequently, the comparison of resurfacing with total hip replacement may be a false one. Nevertheless, the need for innovative solutions for young arthroplasty patients is clear. Total hip replacement can be usefully delayed in many of these patients by the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.