The current generation of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing designs has largely been characterized by cemented femoral fixation using a cementless cup. We present the clinical results of 135 entirely uncemented metal-on-metal hip resurfacing procedures. The primary outcome measures were revision for any cause and the Oxford hip score at the latest follow up. The average length of follow up was 2.9 years. The mean Oxford hip score was 18.4 and no patient required revision of either component during the study period. Uncemented femoral fixation may be comparable to fixation with cement in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.
AmstutzH.C., Le DuffM.J.. Eleven years of experience with metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing: a review of 1000 conserve plus.J Arthroplasty2008; 23 (Suppl 1): 36–43.
2.
McGrathM.S., MarkerD.R., SeylerT.M., UlrichS.D., MontM.A.. Surface replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 94–100.
3.
KhanM., KuiperJ.H., EdwardsD., RobinsonE., RichardsonJ.B.. Birmingham hip arthroplasty: five to eight years of prospective multicenter results.J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 1044–50.
4.
HeilpernG.N., ShahN.N., FordyceM.J.. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a series of 110 consecutive hips with a minimum five-year clinical and radiological follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Br2008; 90: 1137–42.
5.
LavigneM., TherrienM., NantelJ., RoyA., PrinceF., VendittoliP.A.. The John Charnley Award: The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study.Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 468: 326–36.
6.
McBrydeC.W., TheivendranK., ThomasA.M., TreacyR.B., PynsentP.B.. The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing.J Bone Joint Surg Am2010; 92: 105–12.
7.
MontM.A., SeylerT.M., RaglandP.S., StarrR., ErhartJ., BhaveA.. Gait analysis of patients with resurfacing hip arthroplasty compared with hip osteoarthritis and standard total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty2007; 22: 100–8.
8.
PollardT.C., BakerR.P., Eastaugh-WaringS.J., BannisterG.C.. 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 Br2006; 88: 592–600.
9.
MontM.A., McGrathM.S., UlrichS.D., SeylerT.M., MarkerD.R., DelanoisR.E.. Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing arthroplasty in the presence of extra-articular deformities or implants.J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90 (Suppl 3): 45–51.
10.
BallS.T., Le DuffM.J., AmstutzH.C.. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 735–41.
11.
LangtonD.J., JoyceT.J., JamesonS.S.. Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear.J Bone Joint Surg Br2011; 93: 164–71.
12.
SteffenR.T., AthanasouN.A., GillH.S., MurrayD.W.. Avascular necrosis associated with fracture of the femoral neck after hip resurfacing: histological assessment of femoral bone from retrieval specimens.J Bone Joint Surg Br2010; 92: 787–93.
13.
ScheerlinckT., DelportH., KiewittT.. Influence of the cementing technique on the cement mantle in hip resurfacing: an in vitro computed tomography scan-based analysis.J Bone Joint Surg Am2010; 92: 375–87.
14.
BeauléP.E., CampbellP., LuZ.. Vascularity of the arthritic femoral head and hip resurfacing.J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88 (Suppl 4): 85–96.
15.
LittleC.P., RuizA.L., HardingI.J.. Osteonecrosis in retrieved femoral heads after failed resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip.J Bone Joint Surg Br2005; 87: 320–3.
16.
WagnerM., WagnerH.. Preliminary results of uncemented metal on metal stemmed and resurfacing hip replacement arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res1996; 329(suppl): S78–88.
17.
McMinnD., TreacyR., LinK., PynsentP.. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prothesis.Clin Orthop Relat Res1996; 329(suppl): S89–98.
18.
LilikakisA.K., VowlerS.L., VillarR.N.. Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral implant in metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty: minimum of two years follow-up.Orthop Clin North Am2005; 36: 215–22.
19.
GrossT.P., LiuF.. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with an uncemented femoral component. A seven-year follow-up study.J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90 (Suppl 3): 32–7.
20.
GanzR., GillT.J., GautierE., GanzK., KrugelN., BerlemannU.. Surgical dislocation of the adult hip a technique with full access to the femoral head and acetabulum without the risk of avascular necrosis.J Bone Joint Surg Br2001; 83: 1119–24.
21.
DanielJ., PynsentP.B., McMinnD.J.. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis.J Bone Joint Surg Br2004; 86: 177–84.
22.
CortenK., MacDonaldS.J.. Hip resurfacing data from national joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us?Clin Orthop Relat Res2010; 468: 351–7.
23.
MorlockM.M., BishopN., ZustinJ., HahnM., RutherW., AmlingM.. Modes of implant failure after hip resurfacing: morphological and wear analysis of 267 retrieval specimens.J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90 (Suppl 3): 89–95.
24.
SteffenR.T., PanditH.P., PalanJ.. The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series.J Bone Joint Surg Br2008; 90: 436–41.
25.
KatranaP., CrawfordJ.R., VowlerS., LilikakisA., VillarR.N.. Femoral neck resorption after hip resurfacing arthroplasty – a comparison of cemented and uncemented prosthesis (abstract).J Bone Joint Surg Br2006; 88(supp II): 234.
