Hip resurfacing: The metal-on-metal bearing material is not the problem by Dr. Amstutz

The success of total hip replacement (THR) in the 20th century has been
tremendous with improvements in the durability of new designs, bearing materials
and fixation techniques. However, the young and active patients have
historically had high revision rates compared with older, more sedentary
patients, notably when the etiology of the disease is osteonecrosis. Despite
great improvements in cementless stem fixation, hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA)
has the advantages of replicating leg length and offset, and maintaining
proximal bone unlike THR. Moreover, dislocation in THR remains a problem when
small femoral heads are used. Resurfacing patients also do not report thigh pain
as it sometimes happens after THR.

When it comes time for revision surgery, as should be expected for most young
and active patients, whether treated with a resurfacing or a primary THR, the
preserved bone stock with hip resurfacing provides more favorable conditions for
a successful surgery and the technical difficulty of the conversion is
comparable to that of a primary THR. This enables patients seeking to restore
their previous lifestyle to be more active than with a THR, and numerous authors
have reported high levels of physical activity in patients after hip
resurfacing.

Preserving bone and replacing only the affected articular surfaces has always
been and remains a worthy treatment goal, but the first generation of hip
resurfacing suffered from the use of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene
sterilized in air, a material unsuitable for a large bearing size in young and
active patients. Unfortunately, and because of the poor results of the materials
used during that era, many become detractors of the concept of resurfacing.

The current generation of resurfacing devices uses a metal-on-metal (MoM)
bearing because the volumetric wear is low, even with large diameter components,
and the material permits manufacturing of thin one-piece acetabular components
with porous ingrowth for cementless fixation.

Recent long-term data show that certain currently available hip resurfacing
devices can reach up to 99.7% survivorship at 10 years in patients with good
bone quality and implanted with large component sizes. The importance of patient
selection for hip resurfacing and the key role of component size have been
highlighted by the reports of several large centers and the findings of hip
registries. However, improvements in surgical technique have considerably
reduced the rate of aseptic femoral failures (femoral neck fractures and femoral
component loosening) associated with the learning curve of the surgeons who
pioneered the procedure, even with patients who have risk factors.

In the past 3 years, the report of numerous adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR)
has raised doubts in the orthopedic community over the benefits of MoM implants
used for HRA and even more so for THR, probably because of the corrosion
products generated at the ball-stem tapered interface. Often misunderstood, the
hypersensitivity or allergic reactions to metal are a very rare occurrence. In
nearly every case, ALTR are associated with increased wear from poorly
positioned or poorly designed components or both. The recall of a particular MoM
resurfacing device resulted in intense medico-legal solicitations accompanied by
grossly unbalanced reporting in a media blitz and has brought intense scrutiny
to all MoM devices. Anxiety has grown among patients and surgeons despite the
fact that the vast most of MoM devices are functioning well with up to 20 years
of follow-up. This was only aggravated by two reports of extremely rare cases of
cobaltism in association with very high wear of a metal-on-metal bearing.
Naysayers abound, but few have researched the literature where the answers to
the problem can be found (i.e., proper acetabular component design and
orientation).

The acetabular components with the largest femoral head coverage have been
associated with low production of metal ions and a virtual absence of ALTR. The
hypothesis tested in several centers is that a reduced coverage of the head
coming from a combination of increased abduction and/or anteversion leads to
more instances of edge loading, and in the case of the recalled device, a
possible double edge loading, increasing the volumetric wear of the device.

The current focus of most debates about MoM bearings has so far been the wear
properties of the material. I believe that the problems ALTR associated with MoM
devices, unlike the first generation of resurfacing with polyethylene bearings,
are not a bearing material issue per se, but one of device design and technique
and can be prevented by proper component socket design and optimized socket
orientation in both the coronal and sagittal planes.

Because the need for proper socket orientation is so crucial, emphasis must
be placed on using systems in which the instrumentation provides the surgeon
with the tools to precisely implant the socket. Since all currently available
designs have a reduced coverage in the smaller sizes, safe zones for socket
orientation should be determined for all systems using an accurate measurement
method for both cup abduction and anteversion (e.g. Einzel-Bild-Rontgen-Analyse;
Innsbruck, Austria) in a large series with long-term results. After analysis of
our 1350 Conserve Plus Hips (Wright Medical Technology), a safe zone was
produced for all sizes suggesting 42° ± 10° of abduction angle and a 15· ± 10·
of anteversion angle, which I believe represents a target well within reach for
an experienced surgeon.

Although the study of navigation systems applied to hip resurfacing has so
far essentially focused on the placement of the femoral component, a case could
certainly be made for the use of navigation systems, which have shown efficacy
in positioning accurately the acetabular component in THA, especially for
inexperienced surgeons. Just as in THR, exposure of the acetabular cavity is
essential for an accurate placement of the cup and, despite short-term reports
of hip resurfacing performed with small incisions, the minimally invasive
surgery technique can hardly be recommended for this procedure.

Unfortunately, the critical importance of these factors has not been
well-understood until recently, the common belief being that a large diameter
head solves the problem of dislocation in THR just as it does with HRA, while
component orientation was less important because of the increased jump distance.

Every bearing material used in joint replacement has had its specific
downsides, and this remains true today despite all the technological advances.
For example, the necessity of proper acetabular component orientation for
ceramic-on-ceramic bearings to prevent dislocation, chipping, runaway wear and
squeaking was identified after clinical experience and resolved after in vitro
testing. Similar to the ceramic-on-ceramic bearing wear, the MoM wear issues of
design and component orientation became apparent after clinical experience, and
there is tangible evidence that the problem is solvable. Clearly, this is highly
desirable since MoM is the only proven and highly successful material for
resurfacing at the present time permitting high levels of activity. The
well-oriented and fixed components continue to perform at up to 15 years, with
no increase in blood-ion concentration.

The porous fixation of the one-piece acetabular components used in the
current designs of hip resurfacing is usually a cobalt chromium aggregate of
beads with or without hydroxy apatite coating although several hip resurfacing
systems now have titanium plasma spray porous sockets. This type of fixation,
although reliable, may not match the performance of recently developed porous
tantalum or titanium material mimicking trabecular bone. This new technology has
already been adapted to hip resurfacing, although its availability is currently
limited.

While most surgeons understand the increased difficulty of performing
resurfacing compared with THR, there has been insufficient education for
surgeons to gain supervised experience. Fellowships and resident training
programs to learn the hip resurfacing techniques hopefully can produce more
experienced surgeons ready to use with competence the full spectrum of
reconstructive devices available today and in the future.

Improving the socket designs of existing devices to provide larger femoral
head coverage by the socket will give the surgeon more flexibility of
implantation and lessen the likelihood of abnormal wear. Modifications to socket
designs are already in progress to address the weaknesses identified with
certain devices. The manufacturing quality of MoM bearings is excellent nowadays
in most designs, particularly the control of clearance and roundness of the
components, and is certainly sufficient to produce safe and successful hip
arthroplasty devices as long as conservative guidelines for cup implantation are
followed. However, there will undoubtedly be further improvements and reduction
in the wear properties of MoM bearings in the near future.

MoM hip resurfacing is not a new technology any more, and the devices that
have been approved by the FDA after sufficient clinical trials have been
available for more than a decade. It is important to avoid making statements
about a procedure based on the poor results of subsequent designs which were
still in their experimental (non-FDA approved) phase.

Many have written off MoM HRA, and this is unfortunate because superb results
have been achieved with several devices in several centers for the young and
active patient. The MoM bearing, unlike polyethylene of first generation
devices, is not the problem. It is a treatment option for arthritis that is
worth pursuing and improving. It just makes sense to save the head and neck, and
adhere to a fundamental tenet of orthopedics espoused by our forebears — save
bone.

It is my fervent desire to improve surgeon and patient education and
emphasize that there are techniques to solve the problems associated with MoM
hip resurfacing. Charles Kettering said, “The world hates change, yet it is the
only thing that has brought progress.”

— Harlan C. Amstutz MD
Los Angeles
Disclosure: Amstutz has received research support from St. Vincent’s
Medical Center, and research and royalities from Wright Medical Technology.

References:

• Amstutz HC, Dorey F, O’Carroll PF. THARIES resurfacing arthroplasty.
  Evolution and long-term results. Clin Orthop.
  1986;213:92-114.

• Amstutz H, Le Duff M, Campbell P, et al. Clinical and radiographic
  results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year
  follow-up. J Bone and Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(16):2663-2671.

• Amstutz H, Le Duff M, Campbell P, Dorey F. The effects of technique
  changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip
  resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3-9 year follow-up.
  J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(4):481-489.

• Amstutz HC, Takamura K, Le Duff M. The effect of patient selection
  and surgical technique on the results of Conserve Plus hip
  resurfacing-3.5- to 14-year follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am.
  2011; 42(2): 133-142.

• Amstutz H, Wisk L, Le Duff M. Sex as a patient selection criterion
  for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthrop.
  2011;26(2):198-208.

• Anissian HL, Stark A, Gustafson A, et al. Metal-on-metal bearing in
  hip prosthesis generates 100-fold less wear debris than
  metal-on-polyethylene. Acta Orthop Scand.
  1999;70(6):578-582.

• Archibeck M, Berger R, Jacobs J, et al. Second-generation cementless
  total hip arthroplasty. Eight to eleven-year results. J Bone Joint
  Surg Am. 2001;83(11):1666-1673.

• Bader R, Steinhauser E, Zimmermann S, et al. Differences between the
  wear couples metal-on-polyethylene and ceramic-on-ceramic in the
  stability against dislocation of total hip replacement. J Mater
  Sci Mater Med. 2004;15(6):711-718.

• Baad-Hansen T, Kold S, Nielsen P, et al. Comparison of trabecular
  metal cups and titanium fiber-mesh cups in primary hip arthroplasty: a
  randomized RSA and bone mineral densitometry study of 50 hips.
  Acta Orthop. 2011;82(2):155-160.

• Bailey C, Gul R, Falworth M, et al. Component alignment in hip
  resurfacing using computer navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
  2009;467(4):917-922.

• Ball S, Le Duff M, Amstutz H. Early results of conversion of a
  failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone
  Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:735-741.

• Banerjee M, Bouillon B, Banerjee C, et al. Sports activity after
  total hip resurfacing. Am J Sports Med.
  2010;38(6):1229-1236.

• Barrett A, Davies B, Gomes M, et al. Computer-assisted hip
  resurfacing surgery using the acrobot navigation system. Proc Inst
  Mech Eng H. 2007;221(7):773-785.

• Beaulé P, Dorey F. Survivorship analysis of cementless total hip
  arthroplasty in younger patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
  2001;83(10):1590-1591.

• Berry D, von Knoch M, Schleck C, Harmsen W. Effect of femoral head
  diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary
  total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
  2005;87(11):2456-2463.

• Bowsher J, Nevelos J, Williams P, Shelton J. ‘Severe’ wear challenge
  to ‘as-cast’ and ‘double heat-treated’ large-diameter metal-on-metal hip
  bearings. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220(2):135-143.

• Callaghan JJ, Forest EE, Sporer SM, et al. Total hip arthroplasty in
  the young adult. Clin Orthop. 1997;344:257-262.

• Callaghan JJ, Heithoff BE, Goetz DD, et al. Prevention of
  dislocation after hip arthroplasty: lessons from long-term followup.
  Clin Orthop. 2001;393:157-162.

• Capello W, D’Antonio J, Feinberg J, Manley M. Ten-year results with
  hydroxyapatite-coated total hip femoral components in patients less than
  fifty years old. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone
  Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(5):885-889.

• Chandler HP, Reineck FT, Wixson RL, McCarthy JC. Total hip
  replacement in patients younger than thirty years old. J Bone
  Joint SurgAm. 1981;63(9):1426-1434.

• Chevillotte C, Trousdale R, Chen Q, et al. The 2009 Frank
  Stinchfield Award: “Hip squeaking”: a biomechanical study of
  ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces. Clin Orthop Rel Res.
  2010;468(2):345-350.

• Cordingley R, Kohan L, Ben-Nissan B. What happens to femoral neck
  bone mineral density after hip resurfacing surgery? J Bone Joint
  Surg Br. 2010;92(12):1648-1653.

• D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Manley MT, Feinberg J. Hydroxyapatite
  coated implants. Total hip arthroplasty in the young patient and
  patients with avascular necrosis. Clin Orthop.
  1997;344:124-138.

• De Haan R, Campbell P, Su E, De Smet K. Revision of metal-on-metal
  resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of
  the components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(9):1158-1163.

• De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill H, et al. Correlation between inclination
  of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip
  resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
  2008;90(10):1291-1297.

• De Smet K, Van Der Straeten C, Van Orsouw M, et al. Revisions of
  metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: lessons learned and improved outcome.
  Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42(2):259-269.

• Dorr DL, Kane III JT, Conaty P. Long-term results of cemented total
  hip arthroplasty in patients 45 years old or younger. J
  Arthroplasty. 1994;9(5):453-456.

• Dorr LD, Wan Z, Longjohn DB, et al. Total hip arthroplasty with use
  of the Metasul metal-on-metal articulation. Four to seven-year results.
  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(6):789-798.

• Dowdy PA, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB. Uncemented total hip arthroplasty
  in patients 50 years of age or younger. J Arthroplasty.
  1997;12(8):853-862.

• Duffy GP, Berry DJ, Rowland C, Cabanela ME. Primary uncemented total
  hip arthroplasty in patients <40 years old: 10- to 14-year results using
  first-generation proximally porous-coated implants. J
  Arthroplasty. 2001;16(8) Suppl 1:140-144.

• Engh CJ, Culpepper Wn, Engh C. Long-term results of use of the
  anatomic medullary locking prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty. J
  Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(2):177-1784.

• Engh CA, Hooten JP Jr., Zettl-Schaffer KF, et al. Porous-coated
  total hip replacement. Clin Orthop. 1994;298:89-96.

• Eswaramoorthy V, Biant L, Field R. Clinical and radiological outcome
  of stemmed hip replacement after revision from metal-on-metal
  resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(11):1454-1458.

• Eswaramoorthy V, Moonot P, Kalairajah Y, et al. The Metasul
  metal-on-metal articulation in primary total hip replacement: clinical
  and radiological results at ten years. J Bone and Joint Surg Br.
  2008;90(10):1278-1283.

• Fisher N, Killampalli V, Kundra R, e al. Sporting and physical
  activity following hip resurfacing. Int Orthop. 2010;May
  30. [Epub ahead of print].

• Ganapathi M, Vendittoli P, Lavigne M, Günther K. Femoral component
  positioning in hip resurfacing with and without navigation. Clin
  Orthop Relat Res. 2008; Epub ahead of print.

• Garbuz D, Williams D, Greidanus N, et al. Serum metal ion and
  ultrasound assessment of asymptomatic metal-on-metal hip replacement.
  Annual Meetingof the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. San
  Diego, CA, 2011.

• Garrett S, Bolland B, Yates P, et al. femoral revision in hip
  resurfacing compared with large-bearing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.
  J Arthroplasty. 2011;2011 Mar 15. [Epub ahead of print].

• Georgiades G, Babis G, Hartofilakidis G. Charnley low-friction
  arthroplasty in young patients with osteoarthritis: outcomes at a
  minimum of twenty-two years. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
  2010;91(12):2846-2851.

• Graves S. Annual Report. Australian Orthopaedic Association –
  National joint replacement registry. Adelaide, 2009.

• Hannouche D, Zaoui A, Zadegan F, et al. Thirty years of experience
  with alumina-on-alumina bearings in total hip arthroplasty. Int
  Orthop. 2011;35(2):207-213.

• Heithoff BE, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, et al. Dislocation after total
  hip arthroplasty: a single surgeon’s experience. Orthop Clin North
  Am. 2001;32(4):587-591, viii.

• Herman K, Highcock A, Moorehead, J, Scott S. A comparison of Leg
  Length and Femoral Offset discrepancies in Hip Resurfacing, Large Head
  Metal-on-Metal and Conventional Total Hip Replacement: a case series.
  J Orthop Surg Res. 2011; 6(1): 65.

• Hohmann E, Bryant A, Tetsworth K. A comparison between imageless
  navigated and manual freehand technique acetabular cup placement in
  total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011; Jan 20. [Epub
  ahead of print].

• Howie DW, Campbell D, McGee M, Cornish BL. Wagner resurfacing hip
  arthroplasty. The results of one hundred consecutive arthroplasties
  after eight to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
  1990;72(5):708-714.

• Jameson S, Langton D, Nargol A. Articular surface replacement of the
  hip: a prospective single-surgeon series. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
  2010;92(1):28-37.

• Joshi AB, Porter ML, Trail IA, Hunt LP, et al. Long-term results of
  Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in young patients. J Bone Joint
  Surg Br. 1993;75(4):616-623.

• Kim S, Kyung H, Ihn J, et al. Cementless metasul metal-on-metal
  total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years old. J
  Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:2475-2481.

• Kishida Y, Sugano N, NishiiT, et al. Preservation of the bone
  mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip.
  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(3):185-189.

• Kumar M, Shetty M, Kiran K, Kini A. Validation of navigation
  assisted cup placement in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop.
  2011;May 3. [Epub ahead of print].

• Langton D, Jameson S, Joyce T, et al. A review of 585 serum metal
  ion results post hip resurfacing: cup design and position is critical.
  American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. New Orleans, LA, 2010.

• Langton D, Jameson S, Joyce T, et al. Early failure of
  metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip
  replacement: a consequence of excess wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
  2010;92(1):38-46.

• Langton D, Jameson S, Joyce T, 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):1143-1151.

• Langton D, Sprowson A, Joyce T, et al A. Blood metal ion
  concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study
  of articular surface replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing
  arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
  2009;91(10):1287-1295.

• Langton D, Sprowson A, Mahadeva D, et al. Cup anteversion in hip
  resurfacing: validation of EBRA and the presentation of a simple
  clinical grading system. J Arthroplasty.
  2009;25(4):607-613.

• Le Duff M, Amstutz HC. Sporting activity after hip resurfacing:
  Changes over time. Orthop Clin North Am.
  2011;42(2):161-167.

• Liang T, You M, Xing P, et al. Uncemented total hip arthroplasty in
  patients younger than 50 years: A 6- to 10-year follow-up study.
  Orthopedics. 2010;Apr 16 [Epub ahead of print].

• Matthies A, Underwood R, Cann P, et al. Retrieval analysis of 240
  metal-on-metal hip components, comparing modular total hip replacement
  with hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
  2011;93(3):307-314.

• Mao X, Wong A, Crawford R. Cobalt toxicity – an emerging clinical
  problem in patients with metal-on-metal hip prostheses? Med J
  Aust. 2011;194(12):649-651.

• McBryde C, Theivendran K, Thomas A, et al. The influence of head
  size and sex on the outcome of birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone
  Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(1):107-112.

• McGrath M, Marker D, Seyler T, et al. Revision of surface
  replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin
  Orthop Relat Res. 2008;467:94-100.

• McKellop H, Park S-H, Chiesa R, Doorn P, et al. In vivo wear of
  three types of metal on metal hip prostheses during two decades of use.
  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329:S128-S140.

• McMinn D, Daniel J, Pynsent P, Pradhan C. Mini-incision resurfacing
  arthroplasty of hip through the posterior approach. Clin Orthop.
  2005;441:91-98.

• Min B, Song K, Bae K, et al. Second-generation cementless total hip
  arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J
  Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6):902-910.

• Mont M, Ragland P, Marker D. Resurfacing hip arthroplasty:
  comparison of a minimally invasive versus standard approach. Clin
  Orthop. 2005;441:125-131.

• Mont M, Seyler T, Ulrich S, et al. Effect of changing indications
  and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
  2007;465:63-70.

• Naal F, Maffiuletti N, Munzinger U, Hersche O. Sports after hip
  resurfacing arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2007;[Epub ahead
  of print].

• Narvani A, Tsiridis E, Nwaboku H, Bajekal R. Sporting activity
  following Birmingham hip resurfacing. Int J Sports Med.
  2006;27(6):505-507.

• Nevelos JE, Ingham E, Doyle C, et al. Analysis of retrieved alumina
  ceramic components from Mittelmeier total hip prostheses [In Process
  Citation]. Biomaterials. 1999;20(19):1833-1840.

• Nunley R, Zhu J, Brooks P, et al. The learning curve for adopting
  hip resurfacing among hip specialists. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
  2010;468(2):382-391.

• Olsen M, Chiu M, Gamble P, et al. A comparison of conventional
  guidewire alignment jigs with imageless computer navigation in hip
  resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
  2010;92(9):1834-1841.

• Ortiguera C, Pulliam I, Cabanela M. Total hip arthroplasty for
  osteonecrosis. Matched -pair analysis of 188 hips with long-term
  follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(1):21-28.

• Rubash HE, Sinha RK, Shanbhag AS, Kim SY. Pathogenesis of bone loss
  after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am.
  1998;29(2):173-186.

• Saito S, Ryu J, Ishii T, Saigo K. Midterm results of Metasul
  metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthropl.
  2006;21(8):1105-1110.

• Schmalzried T. Metal-metal bearing surfaces in hip arthroplasty.
  Orthopedics. 2009;32-9:E-publication.

• Schmalzried TP, Peters PC, Maurer BT, et al. Long-duration
  metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with low wear of the
  articulating surfaces. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11(3):322-331.

• Sinha R, Dungy D, Yeon H. Primary total hip arthroplasty with a
  proximally porous-coated femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
  2004;86(6):1254-1261.

• Smolders J, Hol A, Rijnders T, van Susante J. Changes in bone
  mineral density in the proximal femur after hip resurfacing and
  uncemented total hip replacement: A prospective randomised controlled
  study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(11):1509-1514.

• Su E, Sheehan M, Su S. Comparison of bone removed during total hip
  arthroplasty with a resurfacing or conventional femoral component a
  cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(2):325-329.

• Treacy R, McBryde C, Shears E, Pynsent P. Birmingham hip
  resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg
  Br. 2011;93(1):27-33.

• Tower S. Arthroprosthetic cobaltism: neurological and cardiac
  manifestations in two patients with metal-on-metal arthroplasty: a case
  report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;October 29 E-pub.

• Witjes S, Smolders J, Beaulé P, etal. Learning from the learning
  curve in total hip resurfacing: a radiographic analysis. Arch
  Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(10):1293-1299.

• Yoo J, Takamura K, Le Duff M, et al. Contact patch to rim distance
  predicts metal ion levels in hip resurfacing. Clin Ortho Rel Res.
  2012; submitted.