title: Outcomes after revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
abstract: We report the results of 58 hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRA) revised by a single surgeon with an average of 5.2±2.6 years follow-up. The four most common causes for revision were acetabular component loosening, femoral neck fracture, femoral component loosening, and adverse wear related failure (AWRF). In 95% of cases (55/58), the revision bearing was a large metal-on-metal type including all seven AWRF cases; three cases were revised to ceramic-on-polyethylene. There were two repeat revisions due to acetabular component loosening. Revision of AWRF had an excellent outcome using limited debridement and a stable large metal bearing placed in the correct position. The only problematic group was the one revised for acetabular loosening in which 2/16 (6%) required repeat revision for failure of acetabular fixation.
authors.affiliation: Midlands Orthopaedics, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina.
authors.forename: Thomas P
authors.initials: TP
authors.lastname: Gross
authors.affiliation: Midlands Orthopaedics, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina.
authors.forename: Fei
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Liu
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / Q000379:methods*; D002516:Ceramics; D002648:Child; D003646:Debridement; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006622:Hip Prosthesis; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D061825:Metal-on-Metal Joint Prostheses; D008875:Middle Aged; D020959:Polyethylene; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D012086:Reoperation; D012307:Risk Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D020959:Polyethylene
keywords: acetabular position; adverse wear failure; hip arthroplasty; hip resurfacing; hip revision; metal-on-metal