Top

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Published in:

01-03-2016 | Hip: Metal-on-Metal (J Cooper, Section Editor)

Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016

Authors: Robert Sershon, Rishi Balkissoon, Craig J. Della Valle

Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Issue 1/2016

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.

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

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.CrossRefPubMed

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

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

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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

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. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCentral

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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. CrossRef

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. CrossRef

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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. CrossRefPubMed

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°. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

60.

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

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

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016
Authors: Robert Sershon
Rishi Balkissoon
Craig J. Della Valle
Publication date: 01-03-2016
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9324-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Stemless shoulder arthroplasty—current results and designs

The arthritic glenoid: anatomy and arthroplasty designs

Expanding roles for reverse shoulder arthroplasty

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

Porous metals and alternate bearing surfaces in shoulder arthroplasty

Total shoulder arthroplasty: are the humeral components getting shorter?