hip replacement today , they quickly realize that medicine is on the verge of a minor revolution. Just a few decades ago, hip replacement involved extensive surgical intervention, lengthy hospital stays, and frequent complications. Today, hip arthroplasty is considered one of the most successful surgeries ever. Modern implants last for decades, and thanks to minimally invasive approaches , patients are often mobile again just a few days after surgery.

But while these minimally invasive techniques have become standard, an old concept is experiencing a surprising comeback: hip resurfacing . This procedure – often referred to as a cap prosthesis – aims to preserve the bone as much as possible. For a long time, however, this idea was fraught with serious complications, particularly metal wear .

Now, resurfacing is being discussed in a new form: no longer as a metal-on-metal prosthesis , but as a ceramic cap prosthesis . Ceramic has proven to be particularly wear-resistant and biocompatible in endoprosthetics. Could this be the solution to the problems of the past?

The crucial question, however, is: Can a ceramic resurfacing procedure be implanted minimally invasively? Patients today take it for granted that hip surgery should be performed through small, muscle-sparing incisions. This reveals a conflicting point: The principle of resurfacing requires a completely different surgical technique, which is hardly compatible with minimally invasive procedures.

In this article we clarify:

• What exactly is a hip resurfacing?
• Why was the technology in disrepute for so long?
• What does the new ceramic version promise?
• What role do minimally invasive approaches play in modern hip surgery?
• Why are short-stem prostheses the safe, bone-sparing, and truly minimally invasive solution today?

At the end, you will learn why ceramic resurfacing sounds exciting, but is associated with significant disadvantages in practice – and where you a modern, minimally invasive hip prosthesis Mainz / Rhine-Main .

2. What does hip resurfacing mean?

To understand why resurfacing is so controversial, you first need to know the principle.

2.1 Definition: What is a cap prosthesis?

In traditional hip replacement, the entire femoral head is removed. A prosthetic stem is inserted into the femur, connected to a new femoral head ball. This ball then slides into an artificial socket that is inserted into the pelvis.

With surface replacement , things work differently:

• The natural femoral head remains largely intact.
• Only the top layer of the bone is removed.
• A metallic or ceramic cap placed over the femoral head and cemented or anchored.
• This cap forms the new joint surface with a corresponding acetabulum.

In principle, it is a kind of “light hip prosthesis” – the bone remains largely intact and the anatomy of the thigh is hardly changed.

2.2 Goal: Maximum bone preservation

The most important advantage of resurfacing is bone preservation . This is particularly attractive for younger patients (under 55 years of age) who have a long life expectancy and may require revision surgery at some point.
The more bone preserved in the femur, the easier it is to implant a new prosthesis later.

2.3 Differentiation from the classic hip prosthesis

• Standard hip prosthesis (straight stem): complete femoral head removed, long prosthetic stem anchored in the thigh.
• Short stem prosthesis: femoral head removed, but only a short stem anchored in the proximal thigh → bone-sparing, minimally invasive possible.
• Resurfacing (cap prosthesis): The femoral head remains intact, only a cap is placed on top.

This positions the surface replacement between conservative joint preservation (e.g. osteotomy) and classic prosthesis.

2.4 Historical appeal

The idea of ​​replacing a hip joint in a way that preserves the bone has fascinated orthopedic surgeons since the 1970s. It met the wishes of many patients:

• change as little as possible on your own body,
• at the same time become mobile again without pain,
• and keep all options open in the event of an audit.

But as we will see in the next chapters, the reality of resurfacing has long had dark sides.

3. History of resurfacing – from hope to disillusionment

3.1 First attempts in the 1970s

The idea of ​​not completely removing the femoral head , but simply covering it with a prosthetic cap, originated in the 1970s. Initial models of the so-called hip resurfacing were tested at that time, using various materials.

The concept was equally attractive for patients and surgeons:

• Maximum bone preservation – particularly valuable for young patients who will have to live with the prosthesis for many decades.
• More natural anatomy – by preserving the femoral neck, the original lever relationships and muscle insertions are largely preserved.
• Easier revision – if the prosthesis needs to be replaced at some point, all options are open because the bone in the femur remains largely intact.

But even the first generations faced significant problems: Anchoring the caps was technically difficult, and the materials used at the time (e.g., Teflon or early metals) proved to be rather unstable. Many implants became loose again after just a few years.

3.2 The Renaissance in the 1990s and 2000s

After a rather disappointing beginning, resurfacing surgery a comeback in the 1990s. This was primarily due to advances in metallurgy and prosthetic technology .

British orthopedic surgeons Derek McMinn and Ronald F. Treacy developed the renowned Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) system. It was hailed as a game changer. Interest in the hip cap prosthesis rapidly worldwide – including in Germany.

Benefits highlighted:

• Young, active patients should remain physically active for longer.
• The natural movement sequence should be better preserved.
• The bone sparing should facilitate revisions.

Many clinics changed their programs and offered surface replacement as a “modern alternative” to the classic hip prosthesis.

3.3 Metal-on-metal: The great hope

What was special about this generation of cap prostheses was the material : They used metal-on-metal bearings . This meant that both the cap on the femoral head and the socket in the pelvis were made of highly polished metal.

The hope was:

• Metal is durable and resilient.
• The abrasion should be minimal.
• Large head sizes should reduce the risk of dislocation.

Initially, the results seemed promising. Thousands of patients worldwide received such metal prostheses in the early 2000s.

3.4 The problems quickly became apparent – ​​metal abrasion

But complications soon mounted. After just a few years, the following problems became apparent:

1. Metal abrasion:
   With every step, the cap rubs against the pan, creating tiny metal particles (cobalt, chromium, nickel) that enter the body.
2. Metallosis:
   These metal particles are deposited in the surrounding tissue, causing inflammation, necrosis (tissue death), and pain.
3. Systemic metal ion exposure:
   Blood tests showed that patients with metal-on-metal caps had elevated cobalt and chromium levels in their blood. This can potentially damage organs – from the kidneys to the heart.
4. Premature loosening:
   Due to tissue damage, many prostheses became loose after just a few years. The originally planned lifespan of 15–20 years was far from achieved.

3.5 Well-known scandals – the example of ASR

ASR system became particularly notorious . This metal-on-metal system had to be recalled worldwide in 2010 after thousands of patients suffered serious complications.

The consequences:

• Numerous revision surgeries were necessary.
• There have been class action lawsuits and billions in compensation payments worldwide.
• Confidence in resurfacing has been massively shaken.

Other systems, such as the BHR prosthesis, also lost acceptance. National registries, for example, in Great Britain and Australia, published alarming revision rates.

3.6 Withdrawal from routine

Following these experiences, many clinics decided to no longer routinely offer resurfacing. Professional associations such as the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) and international institutions also warned against metal-on-metal systems.

Today applies:

• Metal-on-metal surface replacement is now only used in exceptional cases.
• Most orthopedic centers have completely abandoned this practice.
• Patients who still have a metal cap prosthesis in their body are monitored regularly (including blood tests for metal ions).

3.7 Lessons from the past

The history of resurfacing shows how large the discrepancy between theory and practice can be.

Theoretically:

• Bone preservation, natural anatomy, great mobility.

Practical:

• Metal abrasion, inflammation, loosening, systemic risks.

The most important lesson: An implant must not only be technically fascinating – it must also be safe in the long term.

This is precisely where the current discussion begins: If the problem was the material, could surface replacement with a new material – ceramic – be a real alternative?

3.8 Conclusion on the historical section

Hip resurfacing has a turbulent history:

• 1970s: first, unsuccessful attempts.
• 1990s/2000s: Boom in metal-on-metal systems.
• From 2010: massive problems due to metal abrasion, recalls, loss of confidence.
• Today: only a rare indication, but exciting discussion about new materials.

Patients should be aware that enthusiasm for resurfacing has always been based on the idea of ​​bone preservation—a goal that remains highly relevant today. However, experience with metal-on-metal has shown how dangerous the wrong choice of material can be.

4. The innovation: Ceramic surface replacement – ​​the comeback of the cap prosthesis?

4.1 Why ceramics?

Following the problems with metal-on-metal prostheses, research focused for a long time on safe, biocompatible materials . Ceramic has already proven itself in acetabular cups and conventional hip prostheses to be extremely wear-resistant and biocompatible .

The advantages of ceramics at a glance:

• Biocompatibility: Ceramic does not react with the body, no systemic exposure to metal ions.
• Low abrasion: Significantly less particle formation in the joint. The risk of metallosis is eliminated.
• Hardness: Ceramic is extremely hard and wear-resistant, which theoretically makes long durability possible.
• Smooth sliding surfaces: Reduce the risk of joint noise or micro-movements that could lead to loosening.

For patients, this means that the cap prosthesis can theoretically the benefits of bone preservation without the risks of metal wear.

4.2 Structure and function of the ceramic cap prosthesis

The ceramic cap prosthesis consists of several components:

Ceramic cap for the femoral head:

• Fits over the remaining bone.
• Is cemented or press-fitted.

Articular socket:

• Classic TEP pan made of ceramic or ceramic/polyethylene combination.
• Holds the cap and allows movement.

Fixation mechanism:

• Securing by bone compression or cement.
• Goal: immediate stability, no loosening.

In principle, the ceramic cap replaces the articular cartilage while preserving the natural bone . The mobility of the joint can be very close to the original anatomy, and the load on the femoral neck remains physiological.

4.3 Potential benefits for patients

1. Bone-sparing:
   Preserving the femoral neck is a significant advantage, especially for younger patients or those with higher activity levels. Should revision surgery become necessary at some point, more options are available.
2. No metal ions:
   Unlike the metal-on-metal system, the body is not exposed to metal ions – a significant safety improvement.
3. Low abrasion:
   Ceramic produces less sliding surface wear, which could reduce the loosening rate in the long term.
4. Large head size possible:
   As with metal cap prostheses, the femoral head can be selected to be large → lower dislocation rate.

4.4 Challenges and risks

Despite the theoretical advantages, there are significant limitations :

Ceramic breakage:
Although ceramic is hard and wear-resistant, it is also brittle. A breakage can have catastrophic consequences:

• Sudden instability of the joint
• Need for complex revision surgery
• Potentially irreversible damage to the femoral head

Technical complexity of the operation:
To precisely place the cap on the femoral head, the joint must be dislocated. This means:

• Larger surgical approaches
• More soft tissue damage
• Longer rehabilitation time compared to minimally invasive short-stem systems

Lack of long-term results:
While metal cap prostheses have data over 10–15 years, there are only pilot studies or small cohorts ceramic cap prostheses

• Long-term stability is still unclear
• Larger-scale revisions are not adequately documented

Limited availability:
Ceramic cap prostheses are currently only offered in specialized centers and are not standard in routine practice.

4.5 Current clinical studies and research

In recent years, several research teams worldwide have pilot projects :

• Objective: To check load capacity, abrasion, risk of dislocation and fracture strength.
• First results:
• Low abrasion confirmed
• Low dislocation rate when precisely implanted
• Ceramic fractures are very rare, but possible risk factors have been identified (e.g., malposition, suboptimal bone density)

The study authors concluded: Ceramics are promising , but have not yet been widely clinically tested. Long-term data (10–15 years) are lacking.

4.6 Patient perspective: opportunities vs. risks

For patients, the ceramic cap prosthesis initially sounds like the ideal solution:

• Bone remains preserved
• No metal abrasion
• Physiological mobility

But the reality is complex:

• Surgery possible minimally invasively
• Risk of ceramic breakage remains
• Long-term data are missing → uncertainty about durability and complications

Patients have to weigh up whether they would prefer an innovative but little-tested technology or a proven, safe alternative such as the short-stem prosthesis , which can be inserted minimally invasively and is proven to be long-lasting.

4.7 Conclusion Chapter 4

The ceramic cap prosthesis represents the logical development of surface replacement: bone preservation without metal risk.

But:

• Minimally invasive implantation is hardly possible
• Ceramic breakage remains a theoretical but real risk
• Long-term results are missing

Patients should be aware of these risks and always make the decision in consultation with experienced hip specialists .

5. Minimally invasive hip surgery – the revolution of the last 10 years

Hip surgery has made enormous progress in recent decades. In addition to material innovations, minimally invasive surgical techniques a key focus. For patients, this means shorter hospital stays, less pain, faster mobilization, and less scarring.

5.1 What does “minimally invasive” mean?

The term “minimally invasive” describes surgical procedures that destroy as little tissue as possible while still allowing safe implantation.

Characteristics of minimally invasive hip surgery:

• Small incisions (approx. 6–10 cm vs. 15–25 cm for conventional approaches)
• Muscle-sparing technique: tendons, muscles and ligaments are not cut but pushed aside
• Preservation of the joint capsule, if possible
• Goal: faster getting up, less pain, shorter rehabilitation

These techniques are now at the heart of modern hip surgery and have revolutionized patient care.

5.2 The established minimally invasive approaches

In the last 10 years, the following approaches have become particularly popular:

1. AMIS (Anterior Minimally Invasive Surgery / Direct Anterior Approach):

• Access from the front, between muscles
• No cutting of important muscle groups
• Very low dislocation rate
• Rapid mobilization possible

1. Anterolateral approach (ALMIS):

• Muscle-sparing access from the side to the front
• Stable joint guidance, low risk of dislocation
• Proven for short-stem and standard prostheses

1. Posterolateral approach (PL):

• Access from behind, slightly modified to preserve muscles
• Classic approach, can be adapted minimally invasively

5.3 Benefits for patients

Minimally invasive hip surgery offers measurable benefits:

Less blood loss:

• Gentler muscle preparation → less intraoperative bleeding
• Rarely transfusion necessary

Less postoperative pain:

• Muscles and tendons remain largely intact
• Reduced need for painkillers

Rapid mobilization:

• Patients often get up on the day of surgery or on the first day after surgery
• Shortened hospital stays (2–5 days instead of 7–10)

Cosmetically beneficial:

• Small cuts → smaller scars
• More aesthetically pleasing, especially in younger patients

Better functional results:

• Muscle strength restored faster
• Everyday life and sports possible faster

These advantages are clinically proven and make minimally invasive approaches a standard in modern orthopedic centers.

5.4 Evidence and study situation

Numerous studies confirm the benefits of minimally invasive hip prosthesis implantations:

• Shorter hospital stays (reduction by 2–4 days)
• Lower pain score in the first weeks after surgery
• Faster return to normal activities
• Equivalent long-term results regarding implant loosening compared to conventional approaches

Conclusion: Minimally invasive procedures do not affect long-term stability, but significantly improve postoperative quality of life .

5.5 Why resurfacing cannot really be implanted minimally invasively

Here lies the crucial difference:

• During resurfacing, the femoral head be dislocated in order to position the cap precisely.
• This requires a larger access and more soft tissue mobilization.
• Muscles and capsule are subjected to greater strain → no minimally invasive approach is possible.

Patient perspective:

• Despite modern material choices (ceramics), patients do not benefit from the minimally invasive advantages: greater pain, longer rehabilitation, larger scars.
• Minimally invasive is a core feature of modern hip surgery , which is technically difficult in resurfacing.

5.6 Summary Chapter 5

• Minimally invasive approaches are now standard in modern hip surgery.
• They enable faster standing up, less pain and better functional results.
• The ceramic cap prosthesis cannot use these approaches because dislocation of the femoral head is necessary.
• This is one of the biggest disadvantages of surface replacement compared to modern short-stem prostheses , which can be implanted minimally invasively.

6. Risks of the ceramic cap prosthesis

At first glance, the ceramic cap prosthesis appears to be the ideal solution: bone preservation, biocompatible material, and less wear . However, the reality shows that even this modern option is associated with significant risks and uncertainties . Patients should be fully aware of these risks in order to make an informed decision.

6.1 Ceramic fracture – a rare but catastrophic risk

Although ceramic is extremely hard and wear-resistant, it has a brittle structure . This means:

• In case of high load, incorrect positioning or defects in the bone the cap can break suddenly .
• A fracture leads to immediate instability of the joint .
• Affected patients require a complex revision operation , often more complex than with conventional short-stem prostheses.

Fact: Even if the likelihood of a fracture is low, the consequences are serious. Even minor tears can lead to loosening or pain.

6.2 Soft tissue damage due to necessary dislocation

To place the ceramic cap on the femoral head, the joint be dislocated. This means:

• Muscles, tendons and capsules are stretched or mobilized more intensively.
• Minimally invasive approaches are not possible because sufficient space is required for the cap.
• Result: more postoperative pain, longer rehabilitation, higher risk of postoperative muscle weakness.

Patients must understand that the operation itself is more invasive than a modern short-stem implantation, even though the material is actually innovative.

6.3 Lack of long-term results

While metal cap prostheses have 10–15 years of experience and registry data, only pilot studies or small cohorts exist for ceramic cap prostheses :

• Long-term stability over 15–20 years is unclear
• Revisions in the long term are hardly documented
• Data on physically active patients are missing

This means that the use remains experimental, even if initial results are promising.

6.4 Patient perspective

For young, active patients, the cap prosthesis sounds ideal:

• Bone remains preserved
• No metal abrasion
• Physiological joint mechanics

However, the disadvantages, such as non-minimally invasive access , ceramic fracture , and uncertain long-term results, must be clearly communicated. Patients who value rapid mobilization, short rehabilitation, and safe, proven solutions should consider alternative options.

Modern hip surgery offers proven solutions : for example, the short-stem prosthesis , which is bone-sparing and can be inserted minimally invasively.

6.5 Transition to modern alternatives

The short stem prosthesis combines the advantages of the cap prosthesis (bone preservation, high mobility) with the advantages of the minimally invasive technique :

• Implantation via small, muscle-sparing accesses
• Proven long-term results
• Easier revision if needed

7. Short-stem prosthesis as a modern alternative

In recent years, the short-stem hip replacement bone preservation and minimally invasive techniques . It combines the advantages of hip resurfacing with the advances of modern hip surgery—without the risks of ceramic cap prostheses.

7.1 Structure and function

The short stem prosthesis differs from classic hip prostheses by the shortened stem , which is inserted into the proximal part of the thigh:

Short prosthetic stem

• Anchored in the upper femur
• Gentler on the bone, less material in the medullary cavity

Ball head and socket

• Standardized acetabular cup made of ceramic or polyethylene
• Ball head can be chosen large → low risk of dislocation

Fixation

• Pressfit or cemented, depending on bone quality
• Immediate stability guaranteed

Advantage over cap prosthesis:

• No risky ceramic cap breakage
• Minimally invasive implantation possible
• Long-term results tested

7.2 Minimally invasive implantation

The short-stem prosthesis can be implanted via modern approaches :

• AMIS (Direct Anterior Approach): Muscles are protected, patients often get up on the day of surgery
• Anterolateral approach: Stable access, low dislocation rate
• Posterolateral approach: Modified muscle-sparing, proven

Through these techniques, patients benefit from:

• Less pain
• Faster mobilization
• Shorter hospital stay
• Minor scars

thus combines the advantages of the cap prosthesis (bone preservation) with those of minimally invasive hip surgery – a potential advantage over ceramic cap prostheses.

7.3 Evidence and long-term results

Registry data and clinical studies show:

• Durability: Short-stem prostheses have a long durability, revisions are easily possible
• Stability: Low loosening rate, no increased dislocation rates
• Function: Muscle strength and mobility comparable to or better than with conventional hip prostheses
• Patient satisfaction: High, especially among active patients

Conclusion: The short-stem prosthesis is not experimental, but proven and safe .

7.6 Short-stem prosthesis vs. resurfacing

Brief comparison:

• Surface replacement (ceramic): high bone preservation, minimally invasive implantation impossible, risk of ceramic fracture, experimental
• Short stem prosthesis: good bone preservation, minimally invasive implantation possible, proven technology, easier revision

Conclusion: practical, safe, and evidence-based alternative to resurfacing for most patients

For patients in the Mainz and Rhine-Main area, the ENDOPROTHETICUM under Prof. Dr. Karl Philipp Kutzner modern hip surgery with short-stem prostheses:

• Specialized in minimally invasive techniques
• Individual consultation and surgical planning
• High professional expertise, modern surgical technology, excellent aftercare

7.8 Conclusion Chapter 7

• The short-stem prosthesis combines bone conservation and minimally invasive implantation.
• Long-term results are proven, and revisions are easier than with cap prostheses.
• Patients benefit from rapid mobilization, minimal soft tissue damage, and high safety.
• For many young and active patients, it is the best choice when a hip replacement becomes necessary.

8. Surface replacement vs. short stem prosthesis – the direct comparison

The decision between hip resurfacing (especially ceramic cap prosthesis) and a short-stem hip replacement is often difficult for patients. Both procedures aim to preserve bone and functional hip movement , but differ significantly in terms of safety, surgical access, and long-term outcomes .

8.1 Bone preservation

Resurfacing:

• Goal: maximum preservation of the femoral head
• Advantage in future revision operations
• Risk: In case of complications or ceramic fracture, less intact bone remains

Short stem prosthesis:

• Bone preservation moderate to high, as only the proximal part of the thigh is treated
• More options remain available during revisions
• Advantage: Combination of safety and bone preservation

Conclusion: Theoretically maximum surface replacement, short stem prosthesis practical and safe.

8.2 Minimally invasive approaches

Resurfacing:

• Necessary dislocation of the femoral head
• Greater soft tissue damage, potentially longer rehabilitation
• Minimally invasive implantation not possible

Short stem prosthesis:

• Implantation via muscle-sparing access possible (AMIS, ALMIS)
• Less soft tissue damage
• Rapid mobilization

Conclusion: Minimally invasive advantages can only be achieved with short-stem prostheses.

8.3 Material and safety

Ceramic surface replacement:

• Advantage: no metal abrasion, biocompatible
• Risk: Ceramic fracture with catastrophic consequences
• Long-term data are missing

Short-stem prosthesis (ceramic or polyethylene):

• Proven materials, low abrasion rate
• No brittleness, low risk of breakage or loosening
• Long-term data prove safety

Conclusion: Short-stem prostheses offer proven safety, while surface replacement remains experimental.

8.4 Functional results

Resurfacing:

• Mobility close to the natural hip
• Risk of pain or limited function in case of complications

Short stem prosthesis:

• Mobility very good, comparable to surface replacement
• Muscles and tendons remain intact → faster everyday life and sports

Conclusion: Functionally equivalent or better for short-stem prostheses thanks to minimally invasive technology.

Patient conclusion:
The short-stem prosthesis combines safety, bone preservation, and minimally invasive access . Resurfacing sounds attractive in theory, but is riskier in practice and hardly feasible with minimally invasive techniques.

• Ceramic resurfacing is an exciting but experimental procedure .
• Minimally invasive advantages are not feasible, ceramic breakage remains a residual risk, and long-term results are lacking.
• Short-stem prostheses offer proven safety, minimally invasive implantation and bone preservation .
• For patients rapid mobility, short rehabilitation, and long-term security , the short-stem prosthesis is the more practical choice.

9. Summary

The decision to undergo hip replacement is an important step for patients of all ages. Modern procedures offer bone preservation, rapid mobilization, and reliable long-term results , but not every procedure is equally suitable for every person. This article has extensively explored the differences between ceramic resurfacing and short-stem hip .

9.1 Key points at a glance

Ceramic surface replacement (cap prosthesis):

• Goal: maximum bone preservation and physiological joint movement
• Advantages: no metal abrasion, theoretically great mobility, bone-sparing
• Disadvantages:
• Dislocation of the femoral head necessary → no truly minimally invasive approach
• Risk of ceramic breakage with serious consequences
• Long-term data missing, revisions complex
• Conclusion: Innovative, but experimental and with significant risks

Short stem prosthesis:

• Goal: Bone preservation combined with minimally invasive implantation
• Advantages:
• Minimally invasive possible via AMIS, anterolateral or posterolateral access
• Proven materials (ceramic, polyethylene)
• Longer durability and reliable long-term results (15–20 years)
• Easier revisions when needed
• Faster rehabilitation and less postoperative pain
• Conclusion: Proven, safe and patient-friendly solution

9.2 Why minimally invasive surgery is crucial

The last 10 years have shown that minimally invasive approaches are crucial for the success of hip surgery:

• Less soft tissue damage → less pain
• Faster mobilization → shorter hospital stays
• Better functional results → Daily life and sports possible faster

Patients who value rapid recovery, minimal pain, and functional safety particularly benefit from minimally invasive techniques – which unfortunately are not feasible for surface replacement.

9.3 Bone preservation vs. safety

Resurfacing sounds attractive because it maximum bone preservation . But practice shows:

• Risks such as ceramic breakage or lack of long-term experience relativize the advantage
• Minimally invasive implantation is not possible → longer rehabilitation, more pain

The short stem prosthesis, on the other hand, offers a balanced solution :

• Bone preservation is good to high
• Minimally invasive implantation
• Long-term results tested
• Revisions easier and safer

For most patients, the short-stem prosthesis is therefore the more practical and safer choice .

9.4 Decision-making aid for patients

If you are planning hip surgery, you should consider the following points:

Age and activity level:

• Young, active patients particularly benefit from bone-sparing and minimally invasive methods.

Choice of material:

• Ceramic offers advantages, metal carries abrasion risks, and ceramic cap prostheses are still experimental.

Surgical access:

• Minimally invasive techniques reduce pain, scarring and rehabilitation time.

Long-term results and safety:

• Proven systems (short-stem prosthesis) have been tested over the long term and are easy to revise.

Individual advice:

• Every case is unique – detailed consultation with an experienced hip specialist is crucial.

If you are considering hip surgery or would like to learn more about hip resurfacing, ceramic cap prostheses, or short-stem prostheses ENDOPROTHETICUM Rhein-Main under Prof. Dr. Karl Philipp Kutzner offers excellent expertise:

• Modern hip surgery with minimally invasive approaches
• Individual advice on choosing the optimal prosthesis
• Long-term proven short-stem prostheses that combine bone preservation and rapid recovery
• Professional aftercare and rehabilitation

• Ceramic resurfacing is innovative, but experimental and involves significant risks.
• Minimally invasive approaches are not possible for surface replacement prostheses.
• The short-stem prosthesis offers the perfect balance of safety, bone preservation and minimally invasive implantation .
• Patients benefit from rapid mobilization, reliable long-term results, and revision-friendly technology.
• Individual advice, such as that offered at ENDOPROTHETICUM Rhein-Main, is the key to making the best decision.