Revision THA Post Resurfacing Arthroplasty

  • Eustathios Kenanidis
  • Eleftherios TsiridisEmail author
  • Klaus-Peter Günther


Femoral neck fracture and aseptic loosening of either acetabular or femoral component are the most frequent indications of revision of HRA. Among other infections and metallosis, with or without adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs), are other revision reasons [1]. Several risk factors have been implicated; however, their role is not fully understood. Female sex is considered as a risk factor for HRA revision mainly due to the smaller implant size that is used for them [1]. Older people especially over the age of 55 years old have worse bone quality that further increase the risk for revision [2, 3]. Implant factors, including decreased component size and malpositioning, have been also recognized as risk factors [4].


  1. 1.
    Carrothers AD, et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg. 2010;92(10):1344–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prosser GH, et al. Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(1):66–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gross TP, Liu F. Risk factor analysis for early femoral failure in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the effect of bone density and body mass index. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012;7:1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Langton DJ, et al. The effect of component size and orientation on the concentrations of metal ions after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2008;90(9):1143–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haynes JA, Stambough JB, Barrack RL, Nam D. Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:103–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arican P, et al. The role of bone SPECT/CT in the evaluation of painful joint prostheses. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36(9):931–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walter LR, et al. Distribution of chromium and cobalt ions in various blood fractions after resurfacing hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2008;23(6):814–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wyles CC, et al. Utility of synovial fluid aspirations in failed metal on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(5):818–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwon YM, et al. Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(4):444–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nam D, Barrack RL, Potter HG. What are the advantages and disadvantages of imaging modalities to diagnose wear-related corrosion problems? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(12):3665–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharma AK, et al. Two-stage exchange for infected resurfacing arthroplasty: use of a novel cement spacer technique. J Arthroplast. 2011;26(6):976.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):735–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Su EP, Su SL. Surface replacement conversion: results depend upon reason for revision. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(11 Suppl A):88–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sandiford NA, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Skinner JA. Revision of failed hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty rapidly relieves pain and improves function in the early post-operative period. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whiteside LA. Surgical technique: gluteus maximus and tensor fascia lata transfer for primary deficiency of the abductors of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(2):645–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pritchett JW. One-component revision of failed hip resurfacing from adverse reaction to metal wear debris. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Steiger RN, Miller LN, Prosser GH, Graves SE, Davidson DC, Stanford TE. Poor outcome of revised resurfacing hip arthroplasty 397 cases from the Australian joint replacement registry. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(1):72–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Kwon YM, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Gill HS. Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91(8):1019–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmidutz F, Wanke-Jellinek L, Jansson V, Fottner A, Mazoochian F. Revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty with a bone-conserving short-stem implant: a case report and review of the literature. J Med Case Rep. 2012;6:249.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wong JM, et al. What is the rerevision rate after revising a hip resurfacing arthroplasty? Analysis from the AOANJRR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3458–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eswaramoorthy VK, Biant LC, Field RE. Clinical and radiological outcome of stemmed hip replacement after revision from metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91(11):1454–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Smet KA, Van Der Straeten C, Van Orsouw M, et al. Revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: lessons learned and improved outcome. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42:259.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Haan R, Campbell PA, Su EP, De Smet KA. Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1158–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garrett SJ, Bolland BJ, Yates PJ, Gardner EM, Latham JM. Femoral revision in hip resurfacing compared with large-bearing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2011;26:1214–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sandiford NA, Muirhead A, Skinner J. Revision of the well-fixed Birmingham Hip Resurfacing acetabular component–results using a novel device. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;78:49–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Günther KP, Stiehler M. Revision in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: current knowledge. In: Bentley G, editor. European Instructional lectures, vol. Vol. 15. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2015. p. 143–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eustathios Kenanidis
    • 1
  • Eleftherios Tsiridis
    • 2
    Email author
  • Klaus-Peter Günther
    • 3
  1. 1.Academic Orthopaedic UnitAristotle University Medical SchoolThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Academic Orthopaedic UnitPapageorgiou General Hospital, Aristotle University Medical SchoolThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.University Center of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medicine at Technische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations