HSS Journal ®

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 7–11 | Cite as

Hip Resurfacing: International Perspectives

Review Article
Global Tribology Summit
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

The hip resurfacing concept was developed for young and active patients, especially for femoral bone stock preservation. However, concerns about metal-on-metal bearings with adverse reactions to metal debris have led to a drop off in hip-resurfacing procedures.

Questions/Purposes

The goal of this review is to evaluate our current knowledge of survivorship of second-generation hip resurfacing devices and elaborate international perspectives for product improvement.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search provided information on national joint arthroplasty registers worldwide with a minimum of 3000 reported hip resurfacings. It culminated in the analysis of six registers.

Results

Long-term data showed that available hip resurfacing device survivorship ranged from 95 to 99.7% with 10 years of follow-up, in selected patient populations. The criteria for success were well known, male gender, good bone quality, head component size greater than 48 mm, and cup inclination less than 45°. On the other hand, the recent recall of some hip-resurfacing devices has resulted in huge medico-legal problems and has discredited all implants. It has brought about the recent evolution of hip resurfacing. Femoral fixation is now available for cemented and cementless surfaces. Bearings are still always metal-on-metal, but new types have come on board. Newer designs suggest that ceramic-on-ceramic, cross-linked polyethylene, and oxinium may be applied in this configuration.

Conclusions

In 2015, the evolution of hip resurfacing is ongoing in terms of implant design, alternative bearings, and implant fixation with hopes of improving survivorship.

Keywords

hip resurfacing cementless cement bearing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Julien Girard, MD, PhD, reports grants from Microport and Smith & Nephew, outside the work.

Human/Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

Informed Consent

N/A

Required Author Forms

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.

Supplementary material

11420_2016_9511_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1224 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Amstutz HC, Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, et al. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two- to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 28-39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Hip resurfacing: a 40-year perspective. HSS J. 2012; 8: 275-82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asaad A, Hart A, Khoo MM, et al. Frequent femoral neck osteolysis with Birmingham mid-head resection resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; S1: 1-9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atrey A, Waite J, Hart A, et al. Failure of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing due to metallosis. JBJS Case Connect. 2014; 26, e28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, LeDuff M, et al. Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 418: 87-93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bourne RB, Barrack R, Rorabeck CH, et al. Arthroplasty options for the young patient: oxinium on cross linked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 441: 159-67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canadian Hip Resurfacing Group. A survey on the prevalence of pseudotumours with MoM hip resurfacings in Canadian academic centres. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: 118-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fouilleron N, Wavreille G, Endjah N, et al. Running activity after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40: 889-94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Girard J. Is it time for cementless hip resurfacing? HSS J. 2012; 8: 245-50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, et al. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88: 721-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glyn-Jones S, Pandit H, Kwon YM, et al. Risk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91: 1566-74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Good V, Ries M, Barrack RL, et al. Reduced wear with oxidized zirconium femoral heads. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-A(Suppl 4): 105-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gross TP, Liu F. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with an uncemented femoral component. A seven-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90: 32-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gross TP, Liu F. The first 100 fully porous-coated femoral components in hip resurfacing. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2011; 69: S30-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Itayem R, Arndt A, Nistor L, et al. Stability of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty at two years. A radiostereophotogrammetric analysis study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87: 158-62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katrana P, Crawford JR, Vowler S, et al. Femoral neck resorption after hip resurfacing arthroplasty a comparison of cemented and uncemented prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88: S234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kishida Y, Sugano N, Nishii T, et al. Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86: 185-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lilikakis AK, Vowler SL, Villar RN. Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral implant in metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty: minimum of two years follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005; 36: 215-22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lons A, Arnould A, Pommepuy T, et al. Excellent short-term results of hip resurfacing in a selected population of young patients. Orthop Traumatil Surg Res. 2015; 101(6): 661-5. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Matharu GS, Daniel J, Ziaee H, et al. Failure of a novel ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30: 416-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mazzullo S, Paolini M, Verdi C. Numerical simulation of thermal bone necrosis during cementation of femoral prostheses. J Math Biol. 1991; 29: 475-94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McMinn DJ, Pradhan C, Ziaee H, et al. Is mid-head resection a durable conservative option in the presence of poor femoral bone quality and distorted anatomy? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469: 1589-97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Migaud H, Putman S, Combes A, et al. Metal-on-metal bearing: is this the end of the line? We do not think so. HSS J. 2012; 8: 262-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pritchett J. Highly cross-linked polyethylene for hip resurfacing: results at 10 years in patients under age 50. ISTA (International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty), Vienna, 2015, 11A-6.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rahman L, Muirhead-Allwood SK. The Birmingham mid-head resection arthroplasty—minimum two year clinical and radiological follow-up: an independent single surgeon series. Hip Int 2011; 21(3). doi:  10.5301/HIP.2011.8407
  26. 26.
    Rajakulendran K, Field RE. Neck-preserving femoral stems. HSS J. 2012; 8: 295-303.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seppänen M, Mäkelä K, Virolainen P, et al. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: short-term survivorship of 4,401 hips from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2012; 83: 207-13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spector BM, Ries MD, Bourne RB, et al. Wear performance of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene on oxidized zirconium total knee femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83: 80-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spencer RF. Evolution in hip resurfacing design and contemporary experience with an uncemented device. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: 84-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Su EP. Ceramic-ceramic bearing: too unpredictable to use it regularly. HSS J. 2012; 8: 287-90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service d’Orthopédie C, Hôpital SalengroCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille and Université Lille Nord de FranceLilleFrance
  2. 2.Service d’Orthopédie CCHRU de LilleLille CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations