During hip resurfacing arthroplasty, excessive valgus positioning or surgical technique can result in notching of the femoral neck. Although mechanical weakening and subsequent fracture of the femoral neck are well described, the potential damage to the retinacular vessels leading to an ischaemic event is relatively unknown. Using laser Doppler flowmetry, we measured the blood flow in 14 osteoarthritic femoral heads during routine total hip replacement surgery, before and after notching of the femoral neck. In ten hips there was a reduction in blood flow of more than 50% from the baseline value after simulated notching of the femoral neck. Our results suggest that femoral head vascularity in the osteoarthritic state is similar to the non-arthritic state, where damage to the extraosseous vessels can predispose to avascular necrosis. Surgeons who perform resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip should pay careful attention to these vessels by avoiding excessive dissection around the femoral neck and/or notching.

Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing was developed in the 1990s by surgeons in Birmingham, UK, as a surgical solution to the problem of osteoarthritis in younger, more active patients. Early results were promising and the procedure gained in popularity. However, adverse reports of soft-tissue reaction and failure started to appear from 2008 onwards. Surgeons may be asked to write medico-legal reports on the surgical aspects of an individual case for claimant lawyers or in defence for the NHSLA or indemnity insurers. The purpose of this article is to cover some of the aspects of the operation that may be considered in such medico-legal reports.

Between April 1999 and April 2004, 3497 Birmingham hips were inserted by 89 surgeons. Fracture of the neck of the femur occurred in 50 patients, an incidence of 1.46%. Complete data were available for 45 patients in whom the incidence was 1.91% for women and 0.98% for men. The relative risk of fracture for women vs men was 1.94961 and this was statistically significant (p < 0.01).

The mean time to fracture was 15.4 weeks. In women the fractures occurred at a mean of 18.5 weeks and were more likely to have been preceded by a pro-dromal phase of pain and limping. In men the mean time to fracture was 13.5 weeks.

Significant varus placement of the femoral component, intra-operative notching of the femoral neck and technical problems were common factors in 85% of cases.

We have reviewed 42 patients who had revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing procedures, mostly because of problems with the acetabular component. The revisions were carried out a mean of 26.2 months (1 to 76) after the initial operation and most of the patients (30) were female.

Malpositioning of the acetabular component resulted in 27 revisions, mostly because of excessive abduction (mean 69.9°; 56° to 98°) or insufficient or excessive anteversion. Seven patients had more than one reason for revision. The mean increase in the diameter of the component was 1.8 mm (0 to 4) when exchange was needed.

Malpositioning of the components was associated with metallosis and a high level of serum ions. The results of revision of the femoral component to a component with a modular head were excellent, but four patients had dislocation after revision and four required a further revision.

We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature to relate the survival of hybrid metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty devices to a National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) benchmark for choosing a primary total hip replacement, which is a survival rate of 90% at a follow-up of ten years.

A total of 29 articles (10 621 resurfaced hips) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up ranged from 0.6 to 10.5 years and the survival of the implant ranged from 84% to 100%. Of the 10 621 hips, 370 were revised (3.5%), with aseptic loosening as the most frequent mode of failure.

None of the hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants used to date met the full ten-year NICE benchmark of survival. A total of 13 studies showed satisfactory survival compared with the three-year NICE benchmark.

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The majority of these patients are younger than 55 years of age, and in this group the key benefits include conservation of femoral bone stock and the potential reduction in the rate of dislocation afforded by the larger resurfacing head. Early aseptic loosening is well recognised in patients younger than 55 years of age, and proponents of resurfacing believe that the improved wear characteristics of the metal-on-metal bearing may improve the long-term survival of this implant. There has been some concern, however, that resurfacing may not be conservative of acetabular bone.

We compared a series of 33 consecutive patients who had a hybrid total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented acetabular component and a cemented femoral implant, with 35 patients undergoing a Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. We compared the diameter of the implanted acetabulum in both groups and, because they were not directly comparable, we corrected for patient size by measuring the diameter of the contralateral femoral head. The data were analysed using unpaired t-tests and analysis of covariance.

There was a significantly larger acetabulum in the Birmingham arthroplasty group (mean diameter 56.6 mm vs 52.0 mm; p < 0.001). However, this group had a significantly larger femoral head diameter on the contralateral side (p = 0.03). Analysis of covariance revealed a significant difference between the mean size of the acetabular component implanted in the two operations. The greatest difference in the size of acetabulum was in those patients with a larger diameter of the femoral head. This study shows that more bone is removed from the acetabulum in hip resurfacing than during hybrid total hip arthroplasty, a difference which is most marked in larger patients.

Narrowing of the femoral neck after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip has been described previously in both cemented and uncemented hip resurfacing. The natural history of narrowing of the femoral neck is unknown. We retrospectively measured the diameter of the femoral neck in a series of 163 Birmingham hip resurfacings in 163 patients up to a maximum of six years after operation to determine the extent and progression of narrowing.

There were 105 men and 58 women with a mean age of 52 years (18 to 82). At a mean follow-up of five years, the mean Harris hip score was 94.8 (47 to 100) and the mean flexion of the hip 112.5° (80° to 160°). There was some narrowing of the femoral neck in 77% (125) of the patients reviewed, and in 27.6% (45) the narrowing exceeded 10% of the diameter of the neck. A multiple logistic regression analysis showed a significant association (chi-squared test (derived from logistic regression) p = 0.01) of narrowing with female gender and a valgus femoral neck/shaft angle. There was no significant association between the range of movement, position or size of the component or radiological lucent lines and narrowing of the neck (chi-squared test; p = 0.10 (flexion), p = 0.08 (size of femoral component), p = 0.09 (size of acetabular component), p = 0.71 (femoral component angulation), p = 0.99 (lucent lines)). There was no significant difference between the diameter of the neck at a mean of three years (2.5 to 3.5) and that at five years (4.5 to 5.5), indicating that any change in the diameter of the neck had stabilised by three years (sign rank test, p = 0.60).

We conclude that narrowing of the femoral neck which is found with the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty is in most cases associated with no adverse clinical or radiological outcome up to a maximum of six years after the initial operation.

We present the histological findings of bone retrieved from beneath the femoral components of failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties. Of a total of 377 patients who underwent resurfacing arthroplasty, 13 required revision; for fracture of the femoral neck in eight, loosening of a component in three and for other reasons in two. None of these cases had shown histological evidence of osteonecrosis in the femoral bone at the time of the initial implantation.

Bone from the remnant of the femoral head showed changes of osteonecrosis in all but one case at revision. In two cases of fracture which occurred within a week of implantation, the changes were compatible with early necrosis of the edge of the fracture. In the remaining six fractures, there were changes of established osteonecrosis. In all but one of the non-fracture cases, patchy osteonecrosis was seen.

We conclude that histological evidence of osteonecrosis is a common finding in failed resurfaced hips. Given that osteonecrosis is extensive in resurfaced femoral heads which fail by fracture, it is likely to play a role in the causation of these fractures.

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.

We compared the five- to seven-year clinical and radiological results of the metal-on-metal Birmingham hip resurfacing with a hybrid total hip arthroplasty in two groups of 54 hips, matched for gender, age, body mass index and activity level.

Function was excellent in both groups, as measured by the Oxford hip score, but the Birmingham hip resurfacings had higher University of California at Los Angeles activity scores and better EuroQol quality of life scores. The total hip arthroplasties had a revision or intention-to-revise rate of 8%, and the Birmingham hip resurfacings of 6%. Both groups demonstrated impending failure on surrogate end-points. Of the total hip arthroplasties, 12% had polyethylene wear and osteolysis under observation, and 8% of Birmingham hip resurfacings showed migration of the femoral component. Polyethylene wear was present in 48% of the hybrid hips without osteolysis. Of the femoral components in the Birmingham hip resurfacing group which had not migrated, 66% had radiological changes of unknown significance.