International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 11, pp 2543–2548 | Cite as

Outcomes after revision of metal on metal hip resurfacing to total arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach

  • Victoire Bouveau
  • Thomas-Xavier Haen
  • Joel Poupon
  • Christophe NichEmail author
Original Paper



Function after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in failed metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is variable, but post-operative complication rates are reportedly high. We hypothesized HRA conversion to THA using the direct anterior approach (DAA) would be associated with optimal outcome.


Seventeen MoM-HRAs in 15 patients (seven males, eight females) were revised through the DAA. The mean age was 45 years (28–59 yrs). The most common indications for revision were aseptic loosening of the acetabular component or of the femoral component and femoral neck fracture. In 16 hips, a conversion to a ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) (13 hips) or to a metal-on polyethylene (MOP) (2), or to a large-head MoM (1) THA was done. An isolated femoral revision was done in one hip.


After 6.7 ± 3 years, no hip had required a re-revision. The Postel-Merle d’Aubigne (PMA) functional score improved from 9 (4–14) to 16 (12–18) (p < 0.001). An intra-operative fracture of the greater trochanter (one hip) and dysesthesia of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (four hips) were reported. Mean serum chromium concentration decreased from 33.2 μg/L (11.8–62 μg/L) pre-operatively to 5.8 μg/L (0.4–35.5 μg/L) post-operatively (p < 0.001), and mean serum cobalt concentration decreased from 35.8 μg/L (6.3–85.5 μg/L) to 4.7 μg/L (0.26–25.7 μg/L) (p = 0.003).


Revision of failed MoM-HRA using the DAA resulted in an acceptable clinical outcome, no specific complication and no further surgery. A consistent decline in serum ion levels may be expected following HRA conversion to THA.


Hip resurfacing Metal-on-metal Revision Total hip arthroplasty Serum ion level 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Krantz N, Miletic B, Migaud H et al (2012) Hip resurfacing in patients under thirty years old: an attractive option for young and active patients. Int Orthop 36:1789–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray DW, Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H et al (2012) The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:1180–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marshall DA, Pykerman K, Werle J et al (2014) Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:2217–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McBryde CW, Theivendran K, Thomas AM et al (2010) The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (2016) National Joint Registry 13th Annual Report. Retrieved from
  6. 6.
    Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW et al (2016) Prevalence of and risk factors for hip resurfacing revision: a cohort study into the second decade after the operation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:1444–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grammatopolous G, Pandit H, Kwon YM et al (2009) Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1019–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC (2007) Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:735–741PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desloges W, Catelas I, Nishiwaki T et al (2012) Do revised hip resurfacing arthroplasties lead to outcomes comparable to those of primary and revised total hip arthroplasties? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3134–3141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross TP, Liu F (2014) Outcomes after revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29:219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siguier T, Siguier M, Brumpt B (2004) Mini-incision anterior approach does not increase dislocation rate: a study of 1037 total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res (121):20-32Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 69:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA et al (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement: incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matharu GS, Pandit HG, Murray DW (2017) Poor survivorship and frequent complications at a median of 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:304–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takamura KM, Amstutz HC, Lu Z et al (2014) Wear analysis of 39 conserve plus metal-on-metal hip resurfacing retrievals. J Arthroplast 29:410–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Furnes O, Paxton E, Cafri G et al (2014) Distributed analysis of hip implants using six national and regional registries: comparing metal-on-metal with metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings in cementless total hip arthroplasty in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Migaud H, Putman S, Krantz N et al (2011) Cementless metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-polyethylene hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years of age: a comparative study with twelve to fourteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Smet K, De Haan R, Calistri A et al (2008) Metal ion measurement as a diagnostic tool to identify problems with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:202–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mast NH, Laude F (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty performed through the Hueter interval. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hannemann F, Hartmann A, Schmitt J et al (2013) European multidisciplinary consensus statement on the use and monitoring of metal-on-metal bearings for total hip replacement and hip resurfacing. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Medical Devices. Metal on Metal Hip implants. Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons.
  24. 24.
    Sidaginamale RP, Joyce TJ, Lord JK et al (2013) Blood metal ion testing is an effective screening tool to identify poorly performing metal-on-metal bearingsurfaces. Bone Joint Res 2:84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ball ST, Severns D, Linn M et al (2013) What happens to serum metal ion levels after a metal-on-metal bearing is removed? J Arthroplast 28:53–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lainiala O, Reito A, Elo P et al (2015) Revision of metal-on-metal hip prostheses results in marked reduction of blood cobalt and chromium ion concentrations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:2305–2313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Urban RM, Tomlinson MJ, Hall DJ et al (2004) Accumulation in liver and spleen of metal particles generated at nonbearing surfaces in hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 19:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victoire Bouveau
    • 1
  • Thomas-Xavier Haen
    • 1
  • Joel Poupon
    • 2
  • Christophe Nich
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Raymond Poincare HospitalVersailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines University, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisGarchesFrance
  2. 2.Department of Biological Toxicology, Lariboisiere HospitalParis 7 Diderot University, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations