Hip resurfacing: why does it fail? Early results and critical analysis of our first 60 cases

Resurfacing replacement represents the most conservative solution available for total arthroplasty of the hip. However, despite the excellent results reported by highly experienced surgeons, a small but not insignificant body of literature has been published on the more controversial aspects of this approach, mainly those related to the biological and mechanical vulnerability of the retained epiphysis. We report here our evaluation of most of the variables inherent to this procedure (surgical exposure, implant design, technical steps). Based on our results, we conclude that the short-term outcome is strongly related to the surgical approach and the relationship between implant design and cementing technique. Even if posterior approaches are currently widely accepted for resurfacing replacement, the ability to preserve the medial circumflex artery has been questioned, and an alternative exposure has been proposed with good results (antero-lateral, lateral and digastric trochanteric osteotomy). Moreover, a minimally invasive posterior approach could increase the risks of vascular damage. Alternatively, inner implant geometry could affect the distribution of cement over the epiphysis when other variables (direct or indirect cementing technique, viscosity) are not properly selected

The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

On the basis of the current evidence base, HRS may have better functional outcomes than THA, but the increased risks of heterotopic ossification, aseptic loosening, and revision surgery following HRS indicate that THA is superior in terms of implant survival