Literature DB >> 14711942

Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study.

Harlan C Amstutz1, Paul E Beaulé, Frederick J Dorey, Michel J Le Duff, Pat A Campbell, Thomas A Gruen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Following the reintroduction of metal-on-metal articulating surfaces for total hip arthroplasty in Europe in 1988, we developed a surface arthroplasty prosthetic system using a metal-on-metal articulation. The present study describes the clinical and radiographic results of the first 400 hips treated with metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasties at an average follow-up of three and a half years.
METHODS: Between November 1996 and November 2000, 400 metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasties were performed in 355 patients. All femoral head components were cemented, but only fifty-nine of the short metaphyseal stems were cemented. The patients had an average age of forty-eight years, 73% were men, and 66% had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Clinical and radiographic follow-up were performed at three months postoperatively and yearly thereafter.
RESULTS: The majority of the patients returned to a high level of activity, including sports, and 54% had activity scores of >7 on the University of California at Los Angeles activity assessment system. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves demonstrated that the rate of survival of the components at four years was 94.4%. For patients with a surface arthroplasty risk index score of >3, the rate of survival of the components at four years was 89% compared with a rate of 97% for those with a score of </=3. The patients with a higher risk index were 4.2 times more likely to undergo revision to a total hip replacement at four years. Twelve hips (3%) had a revision to a total hip replacement. Seven of the twelve hips were revised because of loosening of the femoral component, and three were revised because of a femoral neck fracture. Substantial radiolucencies were seen around sixteen uncemented metaphyseal femoral stems. No femoral radiolucencies were observed among the hips in which the metaphyseal stem was cemented. The most important risk factors for femoral component loosening and substantial stem radiolucencies were large femoral head cysts (p = 0.029), patient height (p = 0.032), female gender (p = 0.005), and smaller component size in male patients (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary experience with this hybrid metal-on-metal bearing is encouraging. Optimal femoral bone preparation and component fixation are critical to improving durability. The metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty is easily revised to a standard femoral component if necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level IV (case series [no, or historical, control group]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14711942

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  118 in total

1.  High revision rate at 5 years after hip resurfacing with the Durom implant.

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Ronny Pilz; Urs Munzinger; Otmar Hersche; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  [Hip resurfacing arthroplasty].

Authors:  W-C Witzleb; A Knecht; T Beichler; T Köhler; K-P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  [Durom™ hip resurfacing. Short- to midterm clinical and radiological outcome].

Authors:  J Goronzy; M Stiehler; S Kirschner; K-P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Bone mineral density in the femoral neck increases after hip resurfacing: a cohort with five-year follow-up.

Authors:  Charles A Willis-Owen; Henry D Atkinson; Roger D Oakeshott
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-08-22       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  [Imageless computer navigation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty].

Authors:  Christoph Schnurr; Jochen Nessler; Jürgen Koebke; Joern William Michael; Peer Eysel; Dietmar Pierre König
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.154

6.  The First SICOT Oral Presentation Award 2011: imageless computer-assisted femoral component positioning in hip resurfacing: a prospective randomised trial.

Authors:  Maik Stiehler; Jens Goronzy; Albrecht Hartmann; Frank Krummenauer; Klaus-Peter Günther
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  SAS weekly rounds: avascular necrosis.

Authors:  Thomas W Hamilton; Susan M Goodman; Mark Figgie
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2009-03-18

8.  Hip resurfacing data from national joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us?

Authors:  Kristoff Corten; Steven J MacDonald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Does hip resurfacing require larger acetabular cups than conventional THA?

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Michael S H Kain; Otmar Hersche; Urs Munzinger; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 10.  [Metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing. Development and current state].

Authors:  M Hoberg; M J Le Duff; H C Amstutz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.087

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.