
Learn the Total Hip Replacement: Birmingham Hip resurfacing (Smith and Nephew) surgical technique with step by step instructions on OrthOracle. Our e-learning platform contains high resolution images and a certified CME of the Total Hip Replacement: Birmingham Hip resurfacing (Smith and Nephew) surgical procedure.
Hip Resurfacing had been the poor relation of Total Hip Replacement for the past 50 years. Theoretically resurfacing, that spares much of the normal bone stock and replaces worn-out anatomy “like for like” on a size basis, is an intuitive solution. As a design solution resurfacing was also widely accepted in replacement knee and shoulder arthroplasty.
Historically though the use of conventional materials for Hip resurfacing implants had failed to match expectations, even regarding the medium term outcomes. Historic metal/polyethylene bearings, such as the Wagner, Amstutz or Buechel-Pappas, had resulted in greater than 50% failure rates at 5 years.
Metal on metal resurfacing was revived by Derek McMinn in the early ’90’s, using the experience gained from the success and failures in early Hip resurfacing to focus on component size and appropriate alloys and joint manufacturing techniques, particularly in relation to the bearing surfaces. The resulting Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (Smith and Nephew) has shown outstanding longer term results.
What other similar but non-identical implants that have followed from other sources have helped demonstrate is that success with this type of implant is very much design, implant and orientation dependent. What has also become evident is that universally excellent results can be achieved in younger male patients, but there is generally less margin for error in component position in females and those with poor(weak) bone stock
This section is my perspective, as a Surgeon involved in the design, on the optimum operative technique for implantation of a Birmingham Hip resurfacing, and is as I use in my own practice.

Indications are similar to THR; pain, loss of function and an analgesic requirement. HR patients tend to be younger (my series- mean 51y, NJR- 54y) and have a greater expectation of functional outcome with a particular emphasis on return to sport.
Different index pathologies carry differing outcomes (Mc Bryde et al.). Regular OA in males with head diameters greater than 50mm is associated with near perfect survival well into the second decade. In contrast small female hips with dysplasia and high combined anteversions fail earlier, mainly due to edge wear issues.
Different devices have widely differing outcomes- principally as a result of metallurgy, cup geometry and cup fixation. In the mid 2000’s there were up to 20 metal resurfacing devices on the open market. Presently, there are 3 or 4 remaining devices; the BHR is the most widely used.


Although hip resurfacing is a bone sparing procedure, in order to create access, soft tissue releases are more extensive than for contemporary THR approaches and this tends to result in more lower limb swelling in the second week.
Whilst dislocation precautions are not necessary, patient and physiotherapists need to undersatnd that soft tissue healing must occur before encouraging active rehabilitation. In practical terms, I keep patients on crutches for two weeks then two canes for two weeks and then mobilise according to pelvic stability or discomfort. I urge patients to walk but discourage exercises during the first six weeks to increase range of movement.
During the second six weeks, I am happy for the patients to return to rhythmic gym activities avoiding jumping, road running and squatting for 4-6 months.
Hip flexion is the final movement to return and carries on improving for over 12 months.
Patients occasionally complain of squeaking at 8-12 weeks usually for several hours duration never to return.
A percentage of patients persist with groin pain at 3 months and this may require some attention to the psoas tendon with physiotherapy or local injection.

The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively.
Matharu GS1, McBryde CW, Pynsent WB, Pynsent PB, Treacy RB.
Bone Joint J. 2013 Sep;95-B(9):1172-7.
Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years.
Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Feb;87(2):167-70.
Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years.
Treacy RB1, McBryde CW, Shears E, Pynsent PB.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Jan;93(1):27-33.
Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series.
Daniel J1, Pradhan C2, Ziaee H1, Pynsent PB2, McMinn DJ1.
Bone Joint J. 2014 Oct;96-B(10):1298-306.
Long-term results of Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients.
Uemura K1, Takao M1, Hamada H2, Sakai T2, Ohzono K3, Sugano N4.
J Artif Organs. 2017 Aug 30.
Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre.
Coulter G1, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Mar;94(3):315-21.
The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series.
Murray DW1, Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Gundle R, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Sep;94(9):1180-6
.
Part of the controversy surrounding hip resurfacing has been the variability of results. Having been involved with the renaissance of hip resurfacing for the past twenty five years, I have witnessed first hand the tribal circus of implant marketing and propaganda. There was a reluctance for many years to accept that there were significant differences in resurfacing implant design and materials which had consequences for implant survivorship and performance.
With the benefit of hindsight, joint registries and and large series, definite conclusions can now be made as follows:
1.Results are device dependent.
2.Results are gender dependent
3.Results are size dependent
4.Results are aetiology dependent
5.Results are surgeon/centre dependent
Joint registries often fail to stratify according to the above and overall results are skewed by inclusion of inappropriate cohorts.
Male patients under age of 50 with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis with BHR performed by a high volume surgeon can expect a 20 year survival of 97% (Van der Straeten – personal communication; to be published 2018); this is unprecedented in joint replacement
In contrast, in one centre a 30% failure at 10yrs is reported in females with BHR.
Reference
- orthoracle.com












































