Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2026
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Minimally invasive hip resurfacing compared to minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty
Michael L Swank1, Martha R Alkire
1The Cincinnati Orthopaedic Research Institute, Cincinnati, OH 45242, USA. mswank2789@aol.com
Background:
Since its March 2006 FDA approval in the United States, Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) has been a popular alternative to hip arthroplasty for the younger patient population. Data to date has shown a trend toward low incidence of dislocation and good survivorship.
Methods:
128 patients operated on by a single surgeon from July 2006 to December 2008 were reviewed for complications, pain, and function. A group of single incision, minimally invasive standard total hip replacements (106 cases) in 2008 was used for comparison of the same outcomes.
Conclusion:
Pain, function, and total Harris Hip scores were all improved by the 2 year mark and better than the total hip group. Overall incision lengths decreased over the study time period. The average age of the BHR recipient was 51 years, approximately 14 years less than the total hip mean age. Pain in the Birmingham group improved by 32 points at the 3 month mark. By the end of 2 years, the Birmingham group Harris Hip score mean was nearly perfect at 98.5 points. Rare incidence of complications, marked decreased pain scores and marked elevation in function were results found in this sample of Birmingham resurfacing.