Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Over one-million patients worldwide have received metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties with a significant proportion requiring revision surgery in the short-term for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). Worldwide authorities have subsequently issued follow-up guidance for MoM hip patients. This article compares follow-up guidelines for MoM hips published by five worldwide authorities, analyses these protocols in relation to published evidence, and assesses the financial implications of these guidelines. A number of major differences exist between authorities regarding patient follow-up, with vast cost differences between protocols (£84 to £988/patient/year for stemmed MoM hips and £0 to £988/patient/year for hip resurfacing). Current worldwide guidance is neither evidence-based nor financially sustainable with most protocols lacking the sensitivity to detect asymptomatic ARMD lesions.

Original publication




Journal article


J arthroplasty

Publication Date





1317 - 1323


finance, follow-up, guidelines, hip resurfacing, metal-on-metal, total hip arthroplasty, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Continuity of Patient Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Device Removal, Hip Prosthesis, Humans, Internationality, Metal-on-Metal Joint Prostheses, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Prosthesis Failure, Reoperation