We report the clinical and radiological outcome at ten years of 104 primary total hip replacements (100 patients) using the Metasul metal-on-metal bearing. Of these, 52 had a cemented Stuehmer-Weber polyethylene acetabular component with a Metasul bearing and 52 had an uncemented Allofit acetabular component with a Metasul liner. A total of 15 patients (16 hips) died before their follow-up at ten years and three were lost to follow-up. The study group therefore comprised 82 patients (85 hips).

The mean Oxford score at ten years was 20.7 (12 to 42). Six of 85 hips required revision surgery. One was performed because of infection, one for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component and four because of unexplained pain. Histological examination showed an aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis associated lesion-type tissue response in two of these. Continued follow-up is advocated in order to monitor the long-term performance of the Metasul bearing and tissue responses to metal debris.

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.