R. T. Steffen, H. P. Pandit, J. Palan, D. J. Beard, R. Gundle and P. McLardy-Smith, “The Five-Year Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: An Independent Series,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. British Volume, Vol. 90-B, No. 4, 2008, pp. 436-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B4.19648

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Mid-Term Review of ADEPT Metal-On-Metal Hip Prosthesis. Functional, Radiological and Metal Ion Analysis

  AUTHORS: James G. A. Plant, Gareth H. Prosser, Ben J. Burston, Stephen J. Edmondston, Piers J. Yates

  KEYWORDS: Metal-On-Metal; Arthroplasty; Modular; Resurfacing; ADEPT; Chromium Ions; Cobalt Ions; Functional Review

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Orthopedics, Vol.4 No.2, February 26, 2014

  ABSTRACT: Background: There is much interest regarding metal-on-metal implants in medical and general media. Much of this has been regarding failure of specific implant systems and metal ion toxicity. We present our early mid-term experience of the ADEPT metal-on-metal system which has both modular and non-modular hip options. Methods: Functional assessment, blood metal ion quantification, and radiographic analysis were performed for the modular and non-modular ADEPT variants. Fifty implants were implanted with a mean follow up time of 28 months. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare modular and resurfacing groups, standardised hip scores were used to compare function to conventional total hip arthroplasty. Results: Metal ion levels were significantly higher in modular prostheses compared to resurfacing implants, but not at “harmful” levels (as determined by a previous metal-on-metal implant recall). Functional outcomes were excellent and revision rates were lower than expected. Conclusions: At our institution we have good outcomes with the ADEPT hip prosthesis. Though patient selection and implant position are crucial, poor performance of metal-on-metal hip replacements is implant specific.