Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016

  • Hip: Metal-on-Metal (J Cooper, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to conventional, stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA). The best reported results are young, active patients with good bone stock and a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Since the 1990s, metal-on-metal (MoM) HRA has achieved excellent outcomes when used in the appropriate patient population. Concerns regarding the metal-on-metal bearing surface including adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) to metal debris have recently lead to a decline in the use of this construct. The current paper aims to provide an updated review on HRA, including a critical review of the most recent literature on HRA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance, •• Of major importance

  1. Mont MA, Ragland PS, Etienne G, Seyler TM, Schmalzried TP. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(8):454–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mont MA, Schmalzried TP. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: important observations from the first ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90 Suppl 3:3–11. doi:10.2106/jbjs.h.00750.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dowson D, Hardaker C, Flett M, Isaac GH. A hip joint simulator study of the performance of metal-on-metal joints: Part I: the role of materials. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(8 Suppl 3):118–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dowson D, Hardaker C, Flett M, Isaac GH. A hip joint simulator study of the performance of metal-on-metal joints: Part II: design. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(8 Suppl 3):124–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gross TP, Liu F. Current status of modern fully porous coated metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):181–5. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fink Barnes LA, Johnson SH, Patrick Jr DA, Macaulay W. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with total hip arthroplasty: two to five year outcomes in men younger than sixty five years. Int Orthop. 2014;38(12):2435–40. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2506-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aulakh TS, Jayasekera N, Singh R, Patel A, Roulahamin N, Kuiper JH, et al. Efficacy of hip resurfacing arthroplasty: 6 year results from an international multisurgeon prospective cohort study. Acta Orthop Belg. 2015;81(2):197–208.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bedigrew KM, Ruh EL, Zhang Q, Clohisy JC, Barrack RL, Nunley RM. 2011 Marshall Urist Young Investigator Award: when to release patients to high-impact activities after hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):299–306. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2131-4. Return of normal BMD as early as 6 months (with maintenance of BMD through five years) following HRA, permitting return to running as early as 6 months.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Society CA. The Canadian Arthroplasty Society’s experience with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. An analysis of 2773 hips. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-b(8):1045–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bornert S, Lutzner J, Beyer F, Gunther KP, Hartmann A. Revision rate and patient-reported outcome after Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a concise follow-Up of 1064 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.041.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Coulter G, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(3):315–21. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.94b3.28185.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Daniel J, Pradhan C, Ziaee H, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-b(10):1298–306. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.96b10.33695.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Haddad FS, Konan S, Tahmassebi J. A prospective comparative study of cementless total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing in patients under the age of 55 years: a ten-year follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-b(5):617–22. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.97b5.34537.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hartmann A, Lutzner J, Kirschner S, Witzleb WC, Gunther KP. Do survival rate and serum ion concentrations 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing provide evidence for continued use? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(11):3118–26. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2329-0.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Koutras C, Antoniou SA, Talias MA, Heep H. Impact of total Hip resurfacing arthroplasty on health-related quality of life measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.05.014.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Le Duff MJ, Takamura KB, Amstutz HC. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients aged 65 or older. Hip Int. 2012;22(6):648–54. doi:10.5301/hip.2012.10350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Matharu GS, McBryde CW, Pynsent WB, Pynsent PB, Treacy RB. The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-b(9):1172–7. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.95b9.31711.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mehra A, Berryman F, Matharu GS, Pynsent PB, Isbister ES. Birmingham hip resurfacing: a single surgeon series reported at a minimum of 10 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(7):1160–6. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Murray DW, Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Gundle R, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P. The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(9):1180–6. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.94b9.29462.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nam D, Nunley RM, Ruh EL, Engh Jr CA, Rogerson JS, Brooks PJ, et al. Short-term results of Birmingham hip resurfacing in the United States. Orthopedics. 2015;38(8):e715–21. doi:10.3928/01477447-20150804-60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rahman WA, Greidanus NV, Siegmeth A, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Patients report improvement in quality of life and satisfaction after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):444–53. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2645-4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ribas M, Cardenas C, Astarita E, Moya E, Bellotti V. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: mid-term results in 486 cases and current indication in our institution. Hip Int. 2014;24 Suppl 10:S19–24. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sandiford NA, Ahmed S, Doctor C, East DJ, Miles K, Apthorp HD. Patient satisfaction and clinical results at a mean eight years following BHR arthroplasty: results from a district general hospital. Hip Int. 2014;24(3):249–55. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Su EP, Housman LR, Masonis JL, Noble Jr JW, Engh CA. Five year results of the first US FDA-approved hip resurfacing device. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(8):1571–5. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tan TL, Le Duff MJ, Takamura KM, Amstutz HC. Do clinical and quality of life scores change over time after hip resurfacing? Hip Int. 2015;25(2):146–51. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Woon RP, Johnson AJ, Amstutz HC. The results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients under 30 years of age. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(6):1010–4. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Althuizen MN, VHooff ML, v d Berg-v Erp SH, VLimbeek J, Nijhof MW. Early failures in large head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2012;22(6):641–7. doi:10.5301/hip.2012.10340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Borgwardt A, Borgwardt L, Borgwardt L, Zerahn B, Fabricius SD, Ribel-Madsen S. Clinical performance of the ASR and ReCap resurfacing implants-7 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(6):993–7. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jameson SS, Baker PN, Mason J, Porter ML, Deehan DJ, Reed MR. Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(6):746–54. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.94b6.29239.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kohan L, Field CJ, Kerr DR. Early complications of hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(6):997–1002. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.01.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Leclercq S, Lavigne M, Girard J, Chiron P, Vendittoli PA. Durom hip resurfacing system: retrospective study of 644 cases with an average follow-up of 34 months. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(3):273–9. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2012.10.018.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Li J, He C, Li D, Zheng W, Liu D, Xu W. Early failure of the Durom prosthesis in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in Chinese patients. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(10):1816–21. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Matharu GS, Daniel J, Ziaee H, McMinn DJ. Failure of a novel ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):416–8. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Naal FD, Pilz R, Munzinger U, Hersche O, Leunig M. High revision rate at 5 years after hip resurfacing with the Durom implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2598–604. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1792-3.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Penny JO, Ding M, Varmarken JE, Ovesen O, Overgaard S. Early micromovement of the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) femoral component: two-year radiostereometry results. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(10):1344–50. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.94b10.29030.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Reito A, Puolakka T, Elo P, Pajamaki J, Eskelinen A. High prevalence of adverse reactions to metal debris in small-headed ASR hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(9):2954–61. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3023-6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Robinson PG, Wilkinson AJ, Meek RM. Metal ion levels and revision rates in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study. Hip Int. 2014;24(2):123–8. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Asaad A, Hart A, Khoo MM, Ilo K, Schaller G, Black JD, et al. Frequent femoral neck osteolysis with Birmingham mid-head resection resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4348-0.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Cadossi M, Tedesco G, Sambri A, Mazzotti A, Giannini S. Hip resurfacing implants. Orthopedics. 2015;38(8):504–9. doi:10.3928/01477447-20150804-07.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Davis ET, Olsen M, Zdero R, Smith GM, Waddell JP, Schemitsch EH. Predictors of femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):110–6. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.05.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Matharu GS, McBryde CW, Revell MP, Pynsent PB. Femoral neck fracture after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence, time to fracture, and outcome after revision. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):147–53. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.04.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Penny JO, Brixen K, Varmarken JE, Ovesen O, Overgaard S. Changes in bone mineral density of the acetabulum, femoral neck and femoral shaft, after hip resurfacing and total hip replacement: two-year results from a randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(8):1036–44. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.94b8.28222.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Bisschop R, Boomsma MF, Van Raay JJ, Tiebosch AT, Maas M, Gerritsma CL. High prevalence of pseudotumors in patients with a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing prosthesis: a prospective cohort study of one hundred and twenty-nine patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(17):1554–60. doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.00716.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fehring TK, Odum S, Sproul R, Weathersbee J. High frequency of adverse local tissue reactions in asymptomatic patients with metal-on-metal THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(2):517–22. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3222-1.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hart AJ, Sabah SA, Sampson B, Skinner JA, Powell JJ, Palla L, et al. Surveillance of patients with metal-on-metal Hip resurfacing and total Hip prostheses: a prospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between blood metal Ion levels and implant failure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(13):1091–9. doi:10.2106/jbjs.m.00957.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Holland JP, Langton DJ, Hashmi M. Ten-year clinical, radiological and metal ion analysis of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: from a single, non-designer surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(4):471–6. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.94b4.27895.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Johnson AJ, Le Duff MJ, Yoon JP, Al-Hamad M, Amstutz HC. Metal ion levels in total hip arthroplasty versus hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(7):1235–7. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.03.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Junnila M, Seppanen M, Mokka J, Virolainen P, Polonen T, Vahlberg T, et al. Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(3):345–50. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.1004015.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Matharu GS, Berryman F, Brash L, Pynsent PB, Treacy RB, Dunlop DJ. Predicting high blood metal ion concentrations following hip resurfacing. Hip Int. 2015. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000258.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Savarino L, Cadossi M, Chiarello E, Baldini N, Giannini S. Do ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing differ from those in metal-on-metal THA at long-term followup? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(9):2964–71. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2981-z.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Van Der Straeten C, Grammatopoulos G, Gill HS, Calistri A, Campbell P, De Smet KA. The 2012 Otto Aufranc award: the interpretation of metal ion levels in unilateral and bilateral hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):377–85. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2526-x. Acceptable upper serum levels being Cr 4.6 μg/L and Co 4.0 μg/L for unilateral HRA and Cr 7.4 μg/L, Co 5.0 μg/L for bilateral HRA in well functioning patients.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Van Der Straeten C, Van Quickenborne D, De Roest B, Calistri A, Victor J, De Smet K. Metal ion levels from well-functioning Birmingham hip resurfacings decline significantly at ten years. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-b(10):1332–8. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.95b10.32022. Co and Cr levels significant decreased over time in well-functioning implants, with increases > 2.5 μg/L from baseline measurements being associated with poor function.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Yoon JP, Le Duff MJ, Johnson AJ, Takamura KM, Ebramzadeh E, Amstutz HC. Contact patch to rim distance predicts metal ion levels in hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(5):1615–21. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2711-y.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Haughom BD, Erickson BJ, Hellman MD, Jacobs JJ. Do complication rates differ by gender after metal-on-metal Hip resurfacing arthroplasty? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(8):2521–9. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4227-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Al-Hamad M, Le Duff MJ, Takamura KM, Amstutz HC. Acetabular component thickness does not affect mid-term clinical results in hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(5):1528–34. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3468-2.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Liu F, Gross TP. A safe zone for acetabular component position in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: winner of the 2012 HAP PAUL award. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(7):1224–30. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.033. Report on a safe zone for acetabular component positioning in hip resurfacing (RAIL: Relative Acetabular Inclination Limit) based on implant size and acetabular inclination angle.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Johnson AJ. Socket position determines hip resurfacing 10-year survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(11):3127–33. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2347-y. Low contact patch to rim distance (CPRD) results in higher revision rates and metal ion levels secondary to increased edge loading and accelerated wear. Preferred cup orientation is to keep the abduction angle within ± 10° of 42° and the anteversion angle within ± 10° of 15°.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Matthies AK, Henckel J, Cro S, Suarez A, Noble PC, Skinner J, et al. Predicting wear and blood metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Orthop Res. 2014;32(1):167–74. doi:10.1002/jor.22459.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gross TP, Liu F. Prevalence of dysplasia as the source of worse outcome in young female patients after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2012;36(1):27–34. doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1290-y.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Aseptic loosening of cobalt chromium monoblock sockets after hip resurfacing. Hip Int. 2015. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000251.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gross TP, Liu F. Comparative study between patients with osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;78(6):735–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nakasone S, Takao M, Sakai T, Nishii T, Sugano N. Does the extent of osteonecrosis affect the survival of hip resurfacing? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(6):1926–34. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2833-x.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tai CL, Chen YC, Hsieh PH. The effects of necrotic lesion size and orientation of the femoral component on stress alterations in the proximal femur in hip resurfacing—a finite element simulation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:262. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-262.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Woon RP, Johnson AJ, Amstutz HC. Results of Conserve Plus(R) metal-on-metal hip resurfacing for post-traumatic arthritis and osteonecrosis. Hip Int. 2012;22(2):195–202. doi:10.5301/hip.2012.9226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Langton DJ, Sprowson AP, Joyce TJ, Reed M, Carluke I, Partington P, et al. Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study of articular surface replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2009;91(10):1287–95. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.91b10.22308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Davis ET, Olsen M, Zdero R, Papini M, Waddell JP, Schemitsch EH. A biomechanical and finite element analysis of femoral neck notching during hip resurfacing. J Biomech Eng. 2009;131(4):041002. doi:10.1115/1.3072889.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Zylberberg AD, Nishiwaki T, Kim PR, Beaule PE. Clinical results of the conserve plus metal on metal hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(1):68–73. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Steffen RT, De Smet KA, Murray DW, Gill HS. A modified posterior approach preserves femoral head oxgenation during hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(3):404–8. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.12.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Lorenzen ND, Stilling M, Ulrich-Vinther M, Trolle-Andersen N, Pryno T, Soballe K, et al. Increased post-operative ischemia in the femoral head found by microdialysis by the posterior surgical approach: a randomized clinical trial comparing surgical approaches in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(12):1735–45. doi:10.1007/s00402-013-1851-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Amstutz HC, Campbell PA, Dorey FJ, Johnson AJ, Skipor AK, Jacobs JJ. Do ion concentrations after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing increase over time? A prospective study. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(4):695–700. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Brown NM, Foran JR, Della Valle CJ. Hip resurfacing and conventional THA: comparison of acetabular bone stock removal, leg length, and offset. Orthopedics. 2013;36(5):e637–41. doi:10.3928/01477447-20130426-28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Langton DJ, Sidaginamale RP, Joyce TJ, Natu S, Blain P, Jefferson RD et al. The clinical implications of elevated blood metal ion concentrations in asymptomatic patients with MoM hip resurfacings: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(3). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001541.

  73. Griffin WL, Fehring TK, Kudrna JC, Schmidt RH, Christie MJ, Odum SM, et al. Are metal ion levels a useful trigger for surgical intervention? J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 Suppl):32–6. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Garbuz DS, Hargreaves BA, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Wilson DR, Forster BB. The John Charnley Award: diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus ultrasound for detecting pseudotumors in asymptomatic metal-on-metal THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(2):417–23. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3181-6. Both US and MRI are highly sensitive and specific tools that may be used for detection of ALTR in HRA patients. US is more cost effective, but relies upon technician availability and skill level.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hart AJ, Satchithananda K, Liddle AD, Sabah SA, McRobbie D, Henckel J, et al. Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case–control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(4):317–25. doi:10.2106/jbjs.j.01508.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Nawabi DH, Hayter CL, Su EP, Koff MF, Perino G, Gold SL, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in symptomatic versus asymptomatic subjects following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(10):895–902. doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.01476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. van der Weegen W, Sijbesma T, Hoekstra HJ, Brakel K, Pilot P, Nelissen RG. Treatment of pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing based on magnetic resonance imaging, metal ion levels and symptoms. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(2):416–21. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.06.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Huang Q, Shen B, Yang J, Zhou ZK, Kang PD, Pei FX. Changes in bone mineral density of the acetabulum and proximal femur after total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(10):1811–5. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.03.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Malviya A, Ng L, Hashmi M, Rawlings D, Holland JP. Patterns of changes in femoral bone mineral density up to five years after hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(6):1025–30. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.09.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Gerhardt DM, Smolders JM, Rijnders TA, Hol A, van Susante JL. Changes in bone mineral density and femoral neck narrowing in the proximal femur three to five years after hip resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(2):308–14. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W Harrison St, Suite 300, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Robert Sershon, Rishi Balkissoon & Craig J. Della Valle

Authors
  1. Robert Sershon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rishi Balkissoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Craig J. Della Valle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Sershon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Robert A. Sershon and Rishi Balkissoon declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Craig J. Della Valle reports grants and personal fees from CD Diagnostics, personal fees from Smith & Nephew, grants from Stryker, personal fees from DePuy, nd personal fees from Zimmer-Biomet, outside the submitted work.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

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

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Hip: Metal-on-Metal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sershon, R., Balkissoon, R. & Valle, C.J.D. Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9, 84–92 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9324-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9324-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation