No resurfacing performs as well as the BIRMINGHAM HIP^◊

Smith & Nephew

Around the world, different resurfacings have been introduced in an effort to compete with the BIRMINGHAM HIP^◊. To date, no competitive resurfacing has matched the performance demonstrated clinically by the BIRMINGHAM HIP^◊ . In Australia, where a variety of resurfacing devices have been available and evaluated in their implant registry, the BIRMINGHAM HIP^◊ is not just the most successful, but also the most popular by far.

In the clinical study provided to the FDA, the BIRMINGHAM HIP^◊ showed a 98% success rate at 5 years(3). Less than 2% needed to be revised for any reason. Most other devices haven’t been around long enough to have results published. On the two longest competitors, published results show a much lower success rate, of 92%(4) and 95%(5) at shorter follow up times. Because these are resurfacing components, the patients were probably able to get a total hip replacement after failure, but the results appear to be significantly inferior to those of the BIRMINGHAM HIP^◊.

Smith & Nephew

3.BIRMINGHAM HIP^◊ Resurfacing (BHR^◊) System FDA Pre-Market Approval submission labeling P040033c, May 9, 2006
4. Cormet Hip Resurfacing System FDA Pre-Market Approval submission labeling P050016c, July 3, 2007
5.Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, et al. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2004;86-A:28-39. Amstutz follow-up paper

No resurfacing performs as well as the BIRMINGHAM HIP◊

BHR◊ Physician Locator

No resurfacing performs as well as the BIRMINGHAM HIP^◊

BHR^◊ Physician Locator