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 surgical resection. We found that the estimated accuracy of imageless registration in the arthroscopic setting was poor, with a mean error of 5.6 mm (standard deviation (. sd. ) 4.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.14 to 7.19). Because of the significant mismatch between the actual position of the probe during surgery and the position of that probe as displayed on the navigation platform screen, navigated femoral osteochondroplasty was physically impossible. The estimated accuracy of image-based registration by means of 3D fluoroscopy had a mean error of 0.8 mm (. sd. 0.51; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94). In terms of the volume of bony resection, a mean of 17% (. sd. 11; -6% to 28%) more bone was resected than with the virtual plan (p = 0.02). The resection was a mean of 1 mm deeper (. sd. 0.7; -0.3 to 1.6) larger than on the original virtual plan (p = 0.02). In conclusion, given the limited femoral surface that can be reached and digitised during arthroscopy of the hip, imageless registration is inaccurate and does not allow for reliable surgical navigation. However, image-based registration does acceptably allow for guided femoral osteochondroplasty in the arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement

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) vs 5.8% (6 of 104), p = 0.569) or re-operation rates without revision (5.1% (5 of 99) vs 2.9% (3 of 104), p = 0.428). In the THR group one recurrent dislocation, two late deep infections and one peri-prosthetic fracture required revision, whereas in the HR group five patients underwent revision for femoral head loosening and one for adverse reaction to metal debris. The mean University of California, Los Angeles activity scores were significantly higher in HR (7.5 (sd 1.7) vs 6.9 (sd 1.7), p = 0.035), but similar mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores were obtained (5.8 (sd 9.5) in HR vs 5.1 (sd 8.9) in THR, p = 0.615) at the last follow-up. Osteolysis was found in 30 of 81 THR patients (37.4%), mostly in the proximal femur, compared with two of 83 HR patients (2.4%) (p < 0.001). At five years the mean metal ion levels were < 2.5 μg/l for cobalt and chromium in both groups; only titanium was significantly higher in the HR group (p = 0.001). Although revision rates and functional scores were similar in both groups at mid-term, long-term survival analysis is necessary to determine whether one procedure is more advantageous than the other.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1464–73.

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.