Background: Hip resurfacing is considered by many to be a conservative alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty. There are advantages and drawbacks to any procedure, and there is a learning curve associated with the introduction of any new technology. The purpose of this study is to report the complication rate, types of complications, and outcomes of hip resurfacing during the early experience of two high-volume hip surgeons.
Methods: Seventy-three hip resurfacing procedures were performed in sixty-four patients between September 2006 and March 2009. These procedures represented 6% of all of the primary hip arthroplasty procedures performed by the two surgeons.
Results: After an average duration of follow-up of twenty-five months, there were six revisions—i.e., an early failure rate of 8%. These revisions were performed to treat two deep infections, two femoral neck fractures, one case of femoral implant loosening, and one failure of an acetabular implant.
Conclusions: Because of a high early failure rate, we have reduced the utilization of hip resurfacing in our patients who are candidates for hip arthroplasty.
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Investigation performed at Joint Implant Surgeons, Inc., New Albany, Ohio
Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from Biomet, Inc. In addition, one or more of the authors or a member of his or her immediate family received, in any one year, payments or other benefits in excess of $10,000 or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Biomet, Inc.).
- Copyright © 2011 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
Enter your JBJS login information below.
Please note that your username is the email address you provided when you registered.