Literature DB >> 15342765

Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. A biomechanical and clinical analysis.

Paul E Beaulé1, Jessica L Lee, Michel J Le Duff, Harlan C Amstutz, Edward Ebramzadeh.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the orientation of the femoral component has been shown to influence the outcome of total hip replacement, its effect on the clinical outcome of surface arthroplasty has not been studied, to our knowledge. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between femoral component positioning and the outcome of a surface arthroplasty of the hip.
METHODS: We reviewed the results of ninety-four hybrid metal-on-metal surface arthroplasties in patients who were forty years old or younger at the time of the operation and were followed for a minimum of two years or until the prosthesis failed. Measurements of the hip reconstruction were made on the anteroposterior pelvic radiograph. The correlation between the orientation of the femoral component and the outcome of the arthroplasty was evaluated, as were stresses within the resurfaced femoral head as a function of the orientation of the femoral component.
RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 4.2 years. Thirteen hips had an adverse outcome, defined as conversion to a total hip replacement, radiolucency of >1 mm in thickness adjacent to the femoral stem, or narrowing of the femoral neck of >10%. The mean femoral stem-shaft angle in the coronal plane was 138 degrees, with the hips that had an adverse outcome having a significantly lower mean angle than the rest of the cohort (133 degrees compared with 139 degrees, p = 0.03). Hips with an angle of <or=130 degrees had an increase in the relative risk of an adverse outcome by a factor of 6.1 (p < 0.004). In the entire cohort, stresses in the superior aspect of the resurfaced femoral head were substantially lower during slow walking than they were during fast walking (7.1 N/mm(2) compared with 14.2 N/mm(2)).
CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the femoral stem-shaft angle toward a valgus orientation during the preparation of the femoral head is important when a hip is being reconstructed with a surface arthroplasty because the resurfaced hip transmits the load through a narrow critical zone in the femoral head-neck region and the valgus angulation may reduce these stresses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15342765     DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200409000-00021

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


  29 in total

1.  Hip resurfacing revision rates: radiological audit of risk factors.

Authors:  N Ramisetty; K M Krishnan; P F Partington
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  [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

3.  Imageless navigation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty increases the implant accuracy.

Authors:  C Schnurr; J W P Michael; P Eysel; D P König
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-12-22       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  2008 Otto Aufranc Award: component design and technique affect cement penetration in hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Wadih Y Matar; Philippe Poitras; Kevin Smit; Olivier May
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Component alignment in hip resurfacing using computer navigation.

Authors:  Chris Bailey; Rehan Gul; Mark Falworth; Steven Zadow; Roger Oakeshott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: risk factors for failure over 25 years.

Authors:  Eric J Yue; Miguel E Cabanela; Gavan P Duffy; Michael G Heckman; Mary I O'Connor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-24       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Two-year migration results of the ReCap hip resurfacing system-a radiostereometric follow-up study of 23 hips.

Authors:  Thomas Baad-Hansen; Stig Storgaard Jakobsen; Kjeld Soballe
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-02-27       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 8.  Radiology of the resurfaced hip.

Authors:  Luthfur Rahman; Margaret Hall-Craggs; Sarah K Muirhead-Allwood
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  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

10.  Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?

Authors:  David R Marker; Michael G Zywiel; Aaron J Johnson; Thorsten M Seyler; Michael A Mont
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-10-02       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.