Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 2, 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
A biomechanical comparison of epiphyseal versus metaphyseal fixed bone-conserving hip arthroplasty
Michael Olsen1, Michael Sellan, Rad Zdero
1Martin Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada. olsenmi@smh.ca
Background:
The Birmingham Mid-Head Resection (BMHR) is a bone-conserving, short-stem alternative to hip resurfacing for patients with abnormal femoral head anatomy.
Methods:
The current study examines whether a bone-preserving femoral component that is fixed into the femoral neck metaphysis provides a mechanical advantage in terms of resisting femoral neck fracture in comparison with a conventional hip resurfacing implant in a human cadaveric femoral model.
Results:
Femora with a BMHR femoral component failed at an average of 23% less load than those prepared with a conventional hip resurfacing component (mean and standard deviation, 5434 ± 2297 compared with 7012 ± 2619 N; p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
An uncemented, metaphyseal fixed, bone-conserving femoral implant does not provide superior mechanical strength or increased resistance to femoral neck fracture in comparison with a conventional hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
