Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls

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

Abstract

Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) remains a viable alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in appropriately selected, active adults with degenerative hip disease. However, orthopedic surgeons are facing a number of scenarios where revision of one or both components of an SRA is indicated. Indications for revision vary and impact the potential outcomes of conversion of a SRA to THA. While clinical outcomes are generally favorable, a growing body of data illustrates patients who undergo conversion of a SRA to THA to be at increased risk of requiring a repeat revision surgery and experiencing functional outcomes inferior to that of a primary THA. The results of patients undergoing conversion of a SRA to THA highlight the need for careful patient selection, thorough preoperative counseling, and technical precision when performing a SRA. Furthermore, a systematic approach to the failed SRA is necessary to ensure optimal clinical results.

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 • Of importance

  1. McKee GK, Watson-Farrar J. Replacement of arthritic hips by the McKee-Farrar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1966;48(2):245–59.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bozic KJ et al. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(7):1614–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McMinn D, Daniel J. History and modern concepts in surface replacement. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220(2):239–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buergi ML, Walter WL. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the Australian experience. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(7 Suppl 3):61–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McMinn DJ et al. Indications and results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop. 2011;35(2):231–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Klein GR et al. 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(2):171–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(2):177–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schmalzried TP et al. Long-duration metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with low wear of the articulating surfaces. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11(3):322–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jazrawi LM, Kummer FJ, DiCesare PE. Alternative bearing surfaces for total joint arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998;6(4):198–203.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Anissian HL et al. The wear pattern in metal-on-metal hip prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58(6):673–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Silva M, Heisel C, Schmalzried TP. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;430:53–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Leslie I et al. Effect of bearing size on the long-term wear, wear debris, and ion levels of large diameter metal-on-metal hip replacements—an in vitro study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008;87(1):163–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Peters CL et al. Reduction in early dislocation rate with large-diameter femoral heads in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 Suppl 2):140–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cuckler JM et al. Large versus small femoral heads in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(8 Suppl 3):41–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jolley MN, Salvati EA, Brown GC. Early results and complications of surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(3):366–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bogoch ER, Fornasier VL, Capello WN. The femoral head remnant in resurfacing arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;167:92–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Amstutz HC et al. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(16):2663–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. deSouza RM et al. Metal ion levels following resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: serial results over a ten-year period. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2010;92(12):1642–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Daniel J et al. 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(2):169–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwon YM et al. Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(4):444–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McGrory B et al. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(5):306–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry annual report. Adelaide: AOA; 2009. p. 20–44.

  23. Hug KT et al. The withdrawn ASR THA and hip resurfacing systems: how have our patients fared over 1 to 6 years? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):430–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. National joint registry for England and Wales. 9th annual report. NJR. 2012.

  25. Nunley RM et al. The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):382–91.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marshall DA et al. Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(7):2217–30.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Carrothers AD et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2010;92(10):1344–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Canadian Arthroplasty S. 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 

  29. Anglin C et al. Hip resurfacing femoral neck fracture influenced by valgus placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:71–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Coulter G et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(3):315–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Murray DW et al. The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(9):1180–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Treacy RB et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2011;93(1):27–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nunley RM, Della Valle CJ, Barrack RL. Is patient selection important for hip resurfacing? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(1):56–65.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hing C, Back D, Shimmin A. Hip resurfacing: indications, results, and conclusions. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:171–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Prosser GH et al. Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(1):66–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mont MA et al. Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:63–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gross TP, Liu F. Risk factor analysis for early femoral failure in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the effect of bone density and body mass index. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012;7:1.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, Herberts P. Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Annual Report 2010. 2010.

  39. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Johnson AJ. Socket position determines hip resurfacing 10-year survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(11):3127–33.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Langton DJ et al. The effect of component size and orientation on the concentrations of metal ions after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2008;90(9):1143–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Amstutz HC, Wisk LE, Le Duff MJ. Sex as a patient selection criterion for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(2):198–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McBryde CW et al. The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(1):105–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pandit H et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2008;90(7):847–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Canadian Hip Resurfacing Study, G. A survey on the prevalence of pseudotumors with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in Canadian academic centers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(2):118–21.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Arican P et al. The role of bone SPECT/CT in the evaluation of painful joint prostheses. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36(9):931–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Walter LR et al. Distribution of chromium and cobalt ions in various blood fractions after resurfacing hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6):814–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Parvizi J et al. Periprosthetic infection: what are the diagnostic challenges? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88 Suppl 4:138–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wyles CC et al. Utility of synovial fluid aspirations in failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(5):818–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lombardi Jr AV et al. The hip society: algorithmic approach to diagnosis and management of metal-on-metal arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(11 Suppl A):14–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. MHRA, Medical Device Alert MDA/2010/033: all metal-on-metal (MOM) hip replacements. 2010.

  51. Hart AJ 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Nam D, Barrack RL, Potter HG. What are the advantages and disadvantages of imaging modalities to diagnose wear-related corrosion problems? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(12):3665–73.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lieberman JR et al. Treatment of the infected total hip arthroplasty with a two-stage reimplantation protocol. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;301:205–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cooper HJ, Della Valle CJ. The two-stage standard in revision total hip replacement. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(11 Suppl A):84–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sharma AK et al. Two-stage exchange for infected resurfacing arthroplasty: use of a novel cement spacer technique. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(6):976.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. George DA, Konan S, Haddad FS. Single-stage hip and knee exchange for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2015.

  57. 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(4):735–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Su EP, Su SL. Surface replacement conversion: results depend upon reason for revision. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(11 Suppl A):88–91. A recent case series demonstrating the impact of preoperative diagnosis on outcomes following conversion of a surface replacement arthroplasty.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Pritchett JW. One-component revision of failed hip resurfacing from adverse reaction to metal wear debris. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):219–24. A recent study assessing the outcomes of 90 single component revisions for failed hip resurfacing due to adverse reaction to metal debris.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sandiford NA, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Skinner JA. Revision of failed hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty rapidly relieves pain and improves function in the early post operative period. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:88.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Whiteside LA. Surgical technique: gluteus maximus and tensor fascia lata transfer for primary deficiency of the abductors of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(2):645–53.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Fehm MN et al. Repair of a deficient abductor mechanism with Achilles tendon allograft after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(13):2305–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. de Steiger RN et al. Poor outcome of revised resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(1):72–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wong JM, et al. What is the rerevision rate after revising a hip resurfacing arthroplasty? Analysis from the AOANJRR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015. This registry based study illustrates the high re-revision rate after revision of a surface replacement arthroplasty.

  65. Eswaramoorthy VK, Biant LC, Field RE. Clinical and radiological outcome of stemmed hip replacement after revision from metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2009;91(11):1454–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Lainiala O et al. Revision of metal-on-metal hip prostheses results in marked reduction of blood cobalt and chromium ion concentrations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(7):2305–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8233, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Jacob A. Haynes, Jeffrey B. Stambough, Robert L. Barrack & Denis Nam

Authors
  1. Jacob A. Haynes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey B. Stambough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert L. Barrack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Denis Nam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Nam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jacob A. Haynes and Jeffrey B. Stambough declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Robert L. Barrack declares that he has received grants, personal fees, royalties, research support, and consultant fees from Stryker, grants from Biomet, grants from Medical Compression Systems, Inc., grants from National Institutes of Health (NIAMS & NICHD), grants from Smith & Nephew, Inc., grants from Wright Medical Technology, royalties or material support from The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., and royalties or material support from Wolters Kluwer Health-Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, outside the submitted work.

Denis Nam reports stock or stock options from OrthAlign, Inc., consultant fees from KCI, and research for EOS Imaging, 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

Haynes, J.A., Stambough, J.B., Barrack, R.L. et al. Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9, 103–111 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9326-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9326-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation