Hi Nick, welcome to the site!
I would be a bit leery of a couple of things.
- A device that is new and has not been vetted to some degree.
- A surgeon that does not have enough experience.
Of the two above, I think the second is most crucial, since I could then have some confidence that the first has some validity.
What seems to be true is that a resurfacing surgeon doesn't really become effective until 200 or more procedures. The more the better, since this is a surgical procedure that is more technically demanding than others, like THR as an example.
I tried to look up some information on the device, but was unable to look at it, wasn't able to find any studies done by the US National Institute of Health (although they did have other ACCIS products).
If it were me, I'd want most importantly a surgeon that did many more procedures, and did them more frequently. For my first surgery, I chose a surgeon who had done 800+ procedures, was doing them at a clip of 3-4 per day and was committed to it. The same surgeon for my second was closing in on 900+ by the time I was scheduled (three months later).
I'd also want to know who he trained under, what his revision rates were, and a reason why he was going with this device vs. a well established device like the BHR.
In the UK you have an outstanding group of HR surgeons who are active and committed to the procedure. I would get a second opinion from one of these, to buttress the one you have already gone to. You want this to succeed, and the device, while very important is one component, surgeon choice is I believe a more important one.
This does not denigrate your current surgeon; he may be highly skilled, it's just that in a procedure like this, you want the best and 20 HRs and an new device raises many warning flags to me.