We have reviewed 42 patients who had revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing procedures, mostly because of problems with the acetabular component. The revisions were carried out a mean of 26.2 months (1 to 76) after the initial operation and most of the patients (30) were female.

Malpositioning of the acetabular component resulted in 27 revisions, mostly because of excessive abduction (mean 69.9°; 56° to 98°) or insufficient or excessive anteversion. Seven patients had more than one reason for revision. The mean increase in the diameter of the component was 1.8 mm (0 to 4) when exchange was needed.

Malpositioning of the components was associated with metallosis and a high level of serum ions. The results of revision of the femoral component to a component with a modular head were excellent, but four patients had dislocation after revision and four required a further revision.

We have managed 27 patients (16 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 68.4 years (50 to 84), with failed total hip replacement and severe proximal femoral bone loss by revision using a distal fix/proximal wrap prosthesis. The mean follow-up was for 55.3 months (25 to 126). The mean number of previous operations was 2.2 (1 to 4). The mean Oxford hip score decreased from 46.2 (38 to 60) to 28.5 (17 to 42) (paired t-test, p < 0.001) and the mean Harris Hip score increased from 30.4 (3 to 57.7) to 71.7 (44 to 99.7) (paired t-test, p < 0.001). There were two dislocations, and in three patients we failed to eradicate previous infection. None required revision of the femoral stem.

This technique allows instant distal fixation while promoting biological integration and restoration of bone stock. In the short term, the functional outcome is encouraging and the complication rates acceptable in this difficult group of patients.

A 34-year-old woman with a benign form of osteopetrosis developed osteoarthritis of the hip. In order to avoid the difficulties associated with inserting the femoral component of a conventional total hip arthroplasty, a hybrid metal-on-metal resurfacing was performed. There were several technical challenges associated with the procedure, including the sizing of the component, press-fit fixation of the acetabular component and femoral head preparation, as well as trying to avoid a fracture. No surgical complication occurred. After more than a year following surgery, the patient showed excellent clinical function and remained satisfied with the outcome. We conclude that the hybrid metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty represents a valuable option for the treatment of patients with osteopetrosis and secondary hip osteoarthritis.