Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 2/2011

01-02-2011 | Original Paper

Indications and results of hip resurfacing

Authors: D. J. W. McMinn, J. Daniel, H. Ziaee, C. Pradhan

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

The best indication for hip resurfacing is a young active patient with severe hip arthritis, good hip morphology and reasonable bone quality. With revision of either component for any reason as the endpoint, there were 68 revisions in our series of 3,095 consecutive Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHR) (1997–2009), including all diagnoses in all ages. This equates to a revision rate of 2.2% and survivorships of 99, 97 and 96% at five, ten and 13 years, respectively. In patients under 55 years with osteoarthritis, the survivorship is 99 and 98% at ten and 13 years. These results provide medium-term evidence that BHR when performed well in properly selected patients offers excellent outcomes and implant survivorship. Small changes to implant materials and design can affect joint function and survivorship significantly as seen from the withdrawal of certain resurfacing devices recently from clinical use. The clinical history of one device cannot be extrapolated to other devices.
Literature
1.
McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P (1996) Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 329(Suppl):S89–S98CrossRefPubMed
2.
Joshi AB, Porter ML, Trail IA, Hunt LP, Murphy JC, Hardinge K (1993) Long-term results of Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(4):616–623PubMed
3.
McMinn DJW (2003) Development of metal/metal hip resurfacing. Hip Int 13:S41–S53
4.
Daniel J, Pradhan C, Ziaee H, McMinn DJ (2008) A clinicoradiologic study of the Birmingham Mid-Head Resection device. Orthopedics 31(12 Suppl 2):124–128
5.
Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ (2004) Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:177–184CrossRefPubMed
6.
DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32PubMed
7.
Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, LeDuff MJ, Gruen T, Amstutz HC (2004) Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 418:87–93CrossRefPubMed
8.
Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA et al (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632PubMed
9.
Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB (2005) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:167–170CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ (2007) 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 89(11):1431–1438CrossRefPubMed
11.
Reito A, Puolakka T, Pajamäki J (2010) Birmingham hip resurfacing: five to eight year results. Int Orthop 2010 Jun 19. [Epub ahead of print]
12.
Ollivere B, Duckett S, August A, Porteous M (2010) The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: 5-year clinical and radiographic results from a District General Hospital. Int Orthop 34:631–634CrossRefPubMed
13.
Aulakh TS, Kuiper JH, Dixey J, Richardson JB (2010) Hip resurfacing for rheumatoid arthritis: independent assessment of 11-year results from an international register. Int Orthop 2010 May 25. [Epub ahead of print]
14.
Khan M, Kuiper JH, Edwards D, Robinson E, Richardson JB (2009) Birmingham hip arthroplasty: five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1044–1050CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Jameson SS, Langton DJ, Nargol AV (2010) Articular surface replacement of the hip: a prospective single-surgeon series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(1):28–37CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Long WT, Dastane M, Harris MJ, Wan Z, Dorr LD (2010) Failure of the Durom Metasul acetabular component. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(2):400–405CrossRefPubMed
19.
Daniel J, Ziaee H, Kamali A, Pradhan C, Band T, McMinn DJ (2010) Ten-year results of a double-heat-treated metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(1):20–27CrossRefPubMed
20.
Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Hallab NJ, Natu S, Nargol AV (2010) Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: a consequence of excess wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(1):38–46CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kishida Y, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Yamaguchi K, Yoshikawa H (2004) Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(2):185–189CrossRefPubMed
22.
Myers GJ, Morgan D, McBryde CW, O’Dwyer K (2009) Does surgical approach influence component positioning with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing? Int Orthop 33:59–63CrossRefPubMed
23.
Shimmin AJ, Back D (2005) Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(4):463–464CrossRefPubMed
24.
Carrothers AD, Gilbert RE, Jaiswal A, Richardson JB (2010) Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(10):1344–1350CrossRefPubMed
25.
Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC (2007) Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):735–741CrossRefPubMed
26.
Springer BD, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG (2003) Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:2156–2162PubMed
27.
Little CP, Ruiz AL, Harding IJ, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Murray DW, Athanasou NA (2005) Osteonecrosis in retrieved femoral heads after failed resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:320–323CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Kwon YM, Glyn-Jones S, Simpson DJ, Kamali A, McLardy-Smith P, Gill HS, Murray DW (2010) Analysis of wear of retrieved metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants revised due to pseudotumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:356–361CrossRefPubMed
30.
Pitto RP, Malak S, Anderson IA (2009) Accuracy of a computer-assisted navigation system in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 33:391–395CrossRefPubMed
31.
Krüger S, Zambelli PY, Leyvraz PF, Jolles BM (2009) Computer-assisted placement technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: improvement in accuracy? Int Orthop 33:27–33CrossRefPubMed
32.
Heisel C, Kleinhans JA, Menge M, Kretzer JP (2009) Ten different hip resurfacing systems: biomechanical analysis of design and material properties. Int Orthop 33:939–943CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Indications and results of hip resurfacing
Authors
D. J. W. McMinn
J. Daniel
H. Ziaee
C. Pradhan
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1148-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

International Orthopaedics 2/2011 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

“Garbage in, garbage out”—the importance of detailing methodological reasoning in orthopaedic meta-analysis

Letter to the Editor

Comments on Smith et al.: Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes

Review

Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes

Original Paper

Results of hip resurfacing

Original Paper

Twenty-year results of the cementless Corail stem

Original Paper

Age-related appearance of muscle trauma in primary total hip arthroplasty and the benefit of a minimally invasive approach for patients older than 70 years