• Simon J W Garrett, Ben J R F Bolland, Piers J Yates, Edward M H Gardner, and Jeremy M Latham.
• Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
• J Arthroplasty. 2011 Dec 1;26(8):1214-8.

AbstractIt has been suggested that revision of the femoral component of hip resurfacing after femoral failure would be straightforward and have an outcome comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). We have compared the outcome of femoral side-only revision resurfacings to the results of primary modular large-bearing metal-on-metal THA. Fourteen consecutive patients underwent revision surgery of the failed femoral component, to a cemented tapered stem (CPT, Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) with a large modular metal head (Smith and Nephew Orthopaedics Ltd, Memphis, Tennessee, or Adept, Finsbury Orthopaedics, Surrey, England). The acetabular component was found to be well fixed, well orientated, and was left in situ. The 14 matched patients in the primary THA group received the same components. At a mean follow-up of 49 months (range, 30-60 months), clinical outcome measured using the Oxford and Harris Hip Scores showed no significant difference (P = .11, P = .45, respectively). Operative time and blood loss were comparable for both groups. We conclude that revision of the failed femoral resurfacing component gives excellent results.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

24 keywords...

hide…