Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

, Volume 467, Issue 1, pp 56–65

Is Patient Selection Important for Hip Resurfacing?

  • Ryan M. Nunley
  • Craig J. Della Valle
  • Robert L. Barrack
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2008


The optimal implant option for hip arthroplasty in the young, active patient remains controversial. There has been renewed interest for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing due to improved design and manufacturing of implants, better materials, enhanced implant fixation, theoretical advantages over conventional total hip arthroplasty, and recent Food and Drug Administration approval of two devices. Recent studies indicate satisfactory short- and midterm clinical results (1- to 10-year followup) with low complication rates, but there is a learning curve associated with this procedure, a more extensive surgical approach is necessary, and long-term results have yet to be determined. Proper patient selection may help avoid complications and improve patient outcomes. Patient selection criteria in the literature appear based predominantly on theoretical considerations without any consensus on stratifying patient risk. The most commonly reported complications encountered with hip resurfacing include femoral neck fracture, acetabular component loosening, metal hypersensitivity, dislocation, and nerve injury. At the time of clinical evaluation, patient age; gender; diagnosis; bone density, quality, and morphology; activity level; leg lengths; renal function; and metal hypersensitivity are important factors when considering a patient for hip resurfacing. Based on our review, we believe the best candidates for hip resurfacing are men under age 65 with osteoarthritis and relatively normal bony morphology.

Level of Evidence: Level V, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


  1. 1.
    Amstutz HC. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14:452–453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amstutz HC, Antoniades JT, Le Duff MJ. Results of metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing for Crowe type-I and II developmental dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:339–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amstutz HC, Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Dorey FJ. Resurfacing THA for patients younger than 50 year: results of 2- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;460:159–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amstutz HC, Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:28–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amstutz HC, Campbell P, Le Duff MJ. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: what have we learned? Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:149–161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amstutz HC, Campbell PA, Le Duff MJ. Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1874–1877.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amstutz HC, Graff-Radford A, Gruen TA, Clarke IC. THARIES surface replacements: a review of the first 100 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;134:87–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amstutz HC, Kilgus DJ, Thomas BJ, Webber MM. Evaluation of bony ingrowth by technetium diphosphonate and sulfur colloid scanning in porous hip resurfacing. Hip. 1987:257–270.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amstutz HC, Su EP, Le Duff MJ. Surface arthroplasty in young patients with hip arthritis secondary to childhood disorders. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:223–230, x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anglin C, Masri BA, Tonetti J, Hodgson AJ, Greidanus NV. Hip Resurfacing Femoral Neck Fracture Influenced by Valgus Placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:71–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    AOA. Australian Orthopaedic Association: National Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report. Adelaide:AOA; 2004. Available at: Accessed January 14, 2008.
  12. 12.
    AOA. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report. Adelaide:AOA; 2007. Available at: Accessed January 14, 2008.
  13. 13.
    Back DL, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:324–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:735–741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barrack RL. Metal-metal hip resurfacing offers advantages over traditional arthroplasty in selected patients. Orthopedics. 2007;30:725–726.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basketter DA, Briatico-Vangosa G, Kaestner W, Lally C, Bontinck WJ. Nickel, cobalt and chromium in consumer products: a role in allergic contact dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28:15–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beaule PE. Surface arthroplasty of the hip: A review and current indications. Seminars in Arthroplasty. 2005;16:70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beaule PE. Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:838.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beaule PE, Amstutz HC, Le Duff M, Dorey F. Surface arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the hip: hemiresurfacing versus metal-on-metal hybrid resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:54–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beaule PE, Antoniades J. Patient selection and surgical technique for surface arthroplasty of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:177–185, viii-ix.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, LeDuff M, Gruen T, Amstutz HC. Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:87–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beaule PE, Harvey N, Zaragoza E, Le Duff MJ, Dorey FJ. The femoral head/neck offset and hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:9–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beaule PE, Le Duff M, Campbell P, Dorey FJ, Park SH, Amstutz HC. Metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty with a cemented femoral component: a 7–10 year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:17–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beaule PE, Poitras P. Femoral component sizing and positioning in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:163–169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beaule PE, Schmalzried TP, Campbell P, Dorey F, Amstutz HC. Duration of symptoms and outcome of hemiresurfacing for hip osteonecrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;385:104–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bierbaum BE, Sweet R. Complications of resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1982;13:761–775.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boyd HS, Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Marulanda GA, Mont MA. Resurfacing for Perthes disease: an alternative to standard hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:80–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brodner W, Grohs JG, Bancher-Todesca D, Dorotka R, Meisinger V, Gottsauner-Wolf F, Kotz R. Does the placenta inhibit the passage of chromium and cobalt after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:102–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buergi ML, Walter WL. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the Australian experience. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:61–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Campbell P, Beaule PE, Ebramzadeh E, LeDuff M, De Smet K, Lu Z, Amstutz HC. The John Charnley Award: a study of implant failure in metal-on-metal surface arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:35–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Campbell P, Shimmin A, Walter L, Solomon M. Metal sensitivity as a cause of groin pain in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Mar 12. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chandler HP, Reineck FT, Wixson RL, McCarthy JC. Total hip replacement in patients younger than thirty years old. A five-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:1426–1434.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Christiansen K, Holmes K, Zilko PJ. Metal sensitivity causing loosened joint prostheses. Ann Rheum Dis. 1980;39:476–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    CIHI. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR). 2005 report: total hip and total knee replacements in Canada. Available at: Accessed January 14, 2008.
  35. 35.
    Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:177–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Daniel J, Ziaee H, Pradhan C, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Blood and urine metal ion levels in young and active patients after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: four-year results of a prospective longitudinal study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:169–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    De Smet KA. Belgium experience with metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:203–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dutton RO, Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Hedley AK. Tharies surface replacement for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64:1225–1237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    FDA. FDA Approval Letter: Summary of Safety and Effectiveness for Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System. Available at: Accessed January 14, 2008.
  40. 40.
    FDA. FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Consumer Information for Hip Resurfacing. Available at: Accessed January 14, 2008.
  41. 41.
    FDA. FDA Approval Letter: Summary of Safety and Effectiveness for Cormet Hip Resurfacing System. Available at: Accessed January 14, 2007.
  42. 42.
    Garellick G, Malchau H, Herberts P. Survival of hip replacements. A comparison of a randomized trial and a registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;375:157–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Garino JP, Steinberg ME. Total hip arthroplasty in patients with avascular necrosis of the femoral head: a 2- to 10-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;334:108–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:721–726.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Grecula MJ, Grigoris P, Schmalzried TP, Dorey F, Campbell PA, Amstutz HC. Endoprostheses for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. A comparison of four models in young patients. Int Orthop. 1995;19:137–143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hallab N. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopedic implants. J Clin Rheumatol. 2001;7:215–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Harty JA, Devitt B, Harty LC, Molloy M, McGuinness A. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry analysis of peri-prosthetic stress shielding in the Birmingham resurfacing hip replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;125:693–695.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hing C, Back D, Shimmin A. Hip resurfacing: indications, results, and conclusions. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:171–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years: an independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1431–1438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Howie DW, Campbell D, McGee M, Cornish BL. Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty. The results of one hundred consecutive arthroplasties after eight to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:708–714.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Howie DW, McGee MA, Costi K, Graves SE. Metal-on-metal resurfacing versus total hip replacement-the value of a randomized clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:195–201, ix.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Iida H, Kaneda E, Takada H, Uchida K, Kawanabe K, Nakamura T. Metallosis due to impingement between the socket and the femoral neck in a metal-on-metal bearing total hip prosthesis. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:400–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kim WC, Grogan T, Amstutz HC, Dorey F. Survivorship comparison of THARIES and conventional hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 40 years old. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:269–277.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kim YH, Oh SH, Kim JS, Koo KH. Contemporary total hip arthroplasty with and without cement in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:675–681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kishida Y, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Yamaguchi K, Yoshikawa H. Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:185–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Klein GR, Levine BR, Hozack WJ, Strauss EJ, D’Antonio JA, Macaulay W, Di Cesare PE. Return to athletic activity after total hip arthroplasty. Consensus guidelines based on a survey of the Hip Society and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:171–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1183–1191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC, Dorey FJ. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing for obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2705–2711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    MacDonald SJ. Can a safe level for metal ions in patients with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties be determined? J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:71–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    MacDonald SJ. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: the concerns. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:86–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    MacDonald SJ, Mehin R. Metal on metal: Clinical results with modern implants. Semin Arthroplasty. 2003;14:123–130.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, Garellick G, Soderman P. The Swedish Total Hip Replacement Register. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Marker DR, Seyler TM, Jinnah RH, Delanois RE, Ulrich SD, Mont MA. Femoral neck fractures after metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:66–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mont MA, Ragland PS, Etienne G, Seyler TM, Schmalzried TP. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14:454–463.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mont MA, Seyler TM, Marker DR, Marulanda GA, Delanois RE. Use of metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:90–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mont MA, Seyler TM, Ulrich SD, Beaule PE, Boyd HS, Grecula MJ, Goldberg VM, Kennedy WR, Marker DR, Schmalzried TP, Sparling EA, Vail TP, Amstutz HC. Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:63–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Montori VM, Swiontkowski MF, Cook DJ. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:43–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Moonot P, Singh PJ, Cronin MD, Kalairajah YE, Kavanagh TG, Field RE. Birmingham hip resurfacing: is acetabular bone conserved? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:319–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Murray JRD, Cooke NJ, Rawlings D, Holland JP, McCaskie AW. A reliable DEXA measurement technique for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Acta Orthopaedica. 2005;76:177–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Naal FD, Maffiuletti NA, Munzinger U, Hersche O. Sports after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:705–711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    NCHS. National Center for Health Statistics: National Hospital Discharge Survey. Available at: Accessed January 14, 2008.
  72. 72.
    Nishii T, Sugano N, Miki H, Takao M, Koyama T, Yoshikawa H. Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:176–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ong KL, Kurtz SM, Manley MT, Rushton N, Mohammed NA, Field RE. Biomechanics of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1110–1115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Patt JC, Mauerhan DR. Outcomes research in total joint replacement: a critical review and commentary. Am J Orthop. 2005;34:167–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:592–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Puolakka TJ, Pajamaki KJ, Halonen PJ, Pulkkinen PO, Paavolainen P, Nevalainen JK. The Finnish Arthroplasty Register: report of the hip register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:433–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ritter MA, Lutgring JD, Berend ME, Pierson JL. Failure mechanisms of total hip resurfacing: implications for the present. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:110–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Schmalzried TP, Silva M, de la Rosa MA, Choi ES, Fowble VA. Optimizing patient selection and outcomes with total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:200–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Shimmin AJ, Back D. Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:463–464.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Silva M, Heisel C, Schmalzried TP. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;430:53–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Silva M, Lee KH, Heisel C, Dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP. The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:40–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Soderman P, Malchau H, Herberts P, Zugner R, Regner H, Garellick G. Outcome after total hip arthroplasty: Part II. Disease-specific follow-up and the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:113–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Surin VV, Sundholm K. Survival of patients and prostheses after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;177:148–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:167–170.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Treuting RJ, Waldman D, Hooten J, Schmalzried TP, Barrack RL. Prohibitive failure rate of the total articular replacement arthroplasty at five to ten years. Am J Orthop. 1997;26:114–118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, Pietrobon R. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:123–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, Lusignan D. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. Hip International. 2006;16:S73-S81.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wagner M, Wagner H. Preliminary results of uncemented metal on metal stemmed and resurfacing hip replacement arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329:S78–S88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Watanabe Y, Shiba N, Matsuo S, Higuchi F, Tagawa Y, Inoue A. Biomechanical study of the resurfacing hip arthroplasty: finite element analysis of the femoral component. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:505–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler M, Koster G, Lohmann CH. Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:28–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Ziaee H, Daniel J, Datta AK, Blunt S, McMinn DJ. Transplacental transfer of cobalt and chromium in patients with metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: a controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:301–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan M. Nunley
    • 1
  • Craig J. Della Valle
    • 2
  • Robert L. Barrack
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryWashington UniversitySt Louis USA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryRush University Medical CenterChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations