Metal-on-metal surface replacement: a triumph of hope over reason: opposes.
Overview
abstract
Hip resurfacing has been performed for over a decade but still raises controversy as an alternative to traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA). Concerns exist about the potential complications of hip resurfacing, including femoral neck fracture and osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Recently, attention has been given to the metal-on-metal bearing of hip resurfacing with regard to production of metal ions, possible tissue necrosis, and rare instances of metal hypersensitivity. Given the success of the gold-standard THA, it is understandable why some surgeons believe metal-on-metal surface replacement to be "a triumph of hope over reason." However, this article opposes that viewpoint, demonstrating that data exist to justify the practice of preserving bone in younger patients. Hip resurfacing can maintain femoral bone without the expense of removing additional acetabular bone by using modern implants with incremental sizing. Furthermore, many of the problems cited with the bearing couple (such as excess metal production) have been due to poor implant designs, which have now been removed from the market. Finally, we now realize that the metal-on-metal articulation is more sensitive to malposition; thus, good surgical technique and experience can solve many of the problems that have been cited in the past. National registry results confirm that in a select population, hip resurfacing performs comparably to THA, while fulfilling the goal of bone preservation.
