Electronic Letters to:

Hip: R. B. C. Treacy, C. W. McBryde, and P. B. Pynsent Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: A MINIMUM FOLLOW-UP OF FIVE YEARS J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87-B: 167-170 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

Letter from Monga and Gambhir

Puneet Monga, A K Gambhir.   (19 April 2005)

Letter from Monga and Gambhir 19 April 2005
Puneet Monga Wrightington Hospital, UK, A K Gambhir. Send letter to journal: Re: Letter from Monga and Gambhir mongapuneet{at}hotmail.com Puneet Monga, et al.	Sir, We read this article with interest. Before patients consent to hip resurfacing it is important to explain to them that as yet we do not know the long-term outcome of the prosthesis.1 Patients often assume that revision of a failed hip resurfacing is a straightforward procedure and that the outcome will be the same as that of a conventional primary total hip replacement. The authors state that “when assessing a new prosthesis, examination of those which have failed is often more instructive than discussing survivors”. Therefore the results of the revision procedures in the three failures achieve paramount significance. Although the authors discuss the mechanism of failure including infection in two and subcapital fracture in another patient, they do not discuss the outcome. We would be interested to know the fate of the three patients who underwent revision procedures and whether their follow-up, albeit short, was comparable with that of a conventional primary hip replacement? P. MONGA, MRCS A.K. GAMBHIR, FRCS (Orth) Wrightington Hospital Wrightington, UK. 1. National institute for clinical excellence. Guidance on the use of metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. London: National institute for clinical excellence, 2002.