Is there a benefit to hip resurfacing instead of hip replacement in surgery for painful hip arthritis?
Theoretically, resurfacing the worn out ball-and-socket joint of the arthritic hip with metal shells seems like a good “conservative” idea, avoiding throwing away the ball (femoral head) as done in a hip replacement, possible withstanding running and jumping sports better over time.  But early experience with resurfacing in the ‘80s was disastrous, and recent designs, despite newer materials, are as yet unproven over the long term. What is clear so far is the current resurfacing hip surgery has a higher incident of complication including hip fracture, loosening of the cemented shell of the femur bone, and metal ion wear particles spread to the tendon dissection, likely greater blood loss (increasing the chance of a need for blood transfusion), and a longer period of rehabilitation. Minimal incision, muscle sparing, uncemented total hip replacement with state-of-the-art bearing surface materials remains the gold-standard treatment for painful, disabling hip arthritis for the vast majority of patients.