Surgeon and resurfacing: considerations after a long experience

  • F. Ravasi
  • P. Sirtori
Conference paper
Part of the Ceramics in Orthopaedics book series (CIO)


Last generation resurfacing systems represent the best solution between the highest preservation of the femoral bone and the reliability with time in young patients, on condition that indications and exclusion criteria are observed and a high precision technique is used for performing the implant. The main problem is still the fracture of the neck of the femur which must be described in detail to the patient on which this procedure will be carried out. According to the data reported by literature, the incidence of the fracture of the neck of the femur ranges between 0.2% and 2%. When comparing these data with the incidence ranging between 0.33 and 4.51% of the dislocations caused by traditional prostheses, the obvious question is whether this complication, in case of well osteointegrated prostheses, is a problem less difficult to handle than the fracture of the neck of the femur.


Femoral Head Acetabular Component Femoral Medial Circumflex Artery Anomalous Position Varus Deviation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Daniel, P.B. Pynsent, D.J.W. McMinn (2004) Metal on metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J. Bone Joint Surg. 86-B:177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. C. Amstutz, P. E. Beaulè, F. J. Dorey, M. J. Le Duff, P. A. Campbell, T. A. Gruen (2004) Metal on metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J. Bone Joint Surg. 86-A 28–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. C. Amstutz, P. A. Campbell, M. J. Le Duff (2004) Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J. Bone Joint Surg. 86-A: 1874–1877.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Back, R. Dalziel, D. Young, A. Shimmin (2005) Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacing. An indipendent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J. Bone Joint Surg. 87-B: 324–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. J. Shimmin, J. Bare, D.L. Back (2005) Complication associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 36: 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. E. Beaulè, J. Antoniades (2005) Patient selection and surgical technique for surface arthroplasty of the hip. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 36: 177–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. E. Beaulè, J. L. Lee, M. J. Le Duff, H. C. Amstutz, E. Ebramzadeh (2004) Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. A biomechanical and clinical analysis. J. Bone Joint Surg. 86-A: 2015–2021.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. J. Shimmin, D. Back (2005) Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. J. Bone Joint Surg. 87-B: 463–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. B. C. Treacy, C. W. McBryde, P. B. Pynsent (2005) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty a minimum follow-up of five years. J. Bone Joint Surg. 87-B 167–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Nork, M. Schar, G. Pfander, M. Beck, V. Djonov, R. Ganz, M. Leunig (2005) Anatomic considerations for the choice of surgical approach for hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 36: 163–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. P. Schmalzried, P.C. Peters, B.T. Maurer, C.R. Bragdon, W.H. Harris (1996) long duration metal on metal total hip arthroplasties with low wear of the articulating surfaces. J Artrhroplasty. 11: 322–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Ravasi
  • P. Sirtori

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations