Literature DB >> 16331003

Optimizing patient selection and outcomes with total hip resurfacing.

Thomas P Schmalzried1, Mauricio Silva, Mylene A de la Rosa, Eui-Sung Choi, Vincent A Fowble.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Short-term failures of total hip resurfacing have been related to specific characteristics of the proximal femur. A radiographic arthritic hip grading scale was used to assess four characteristics of the proximal femur: bone density, shape, biomechanics, and focal bone defects. Hips with no unfavorable characteristics were Grade A, hips with one unfavorable characteristic were Grade B, hips with two unfavorable characteristics were Grade C, hips with three unfavorable characteristics were Grade D, and hips with four unfavorable characteristics were Grade F. One hundred forty-seven consecutive hips were treated with metal-on-metal resurfacing by a single surgeon. There were no femoral neck fractures. Of the 91 hips eligible for a minimum 2 year followup, 90% were Grades A or B, 10% were Grade C, and none were Grades D or F. With a minimum 2-year followup, arthritic hip grading was associated with preoperative Harris hip score, occurrence of mild to moderate postoperative pain, preoperative and postoperative range of motion, preoperative and postoperative hip center of rotation, preoperative and postoperative horizontal femoral offset, preoperative and postoperative limb length discrepancy, and acetabular radiolucencies. Hips with a lesser degree of secondary arthritic changes have a higher arthritic hip grade and better outcomes with total hip resurfacing. Relatively strict selection criteria for resurfacing were associated with a low occurrence of short-term failures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, Level II (retrospective study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16331003     DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000192354.76792.bb

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Is mid-head resection a durable conservative option in the presence of poor femoral bone quality and distorted anatomy?

Authors:  Derek J W McMinn; Chandra Pradhan; Hena Ziaee; Joseph Daniel
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Frequent femoral neck osteolysis with Birmingham mid-head resection resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  Asaad Asaad; Alister Hart; Michael M Y Khoo; Kevin Ilo; Gavin Schaller; Jonathan D J Black; Sarah Muirhead-Allwood
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Does acetabular retroversion affect range of motion after total hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Stephen J Incavo; Jonathan E Gold; Jesse James F Exaltacion; Matthew T Thompson; Philip C Noble
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-07-28       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  A custom-made guide-wire positioning device for hip surface replacement arthroplasty: description and first results.

Authors:  Martijn Raaijmaakers; Frederik Gelaude; Karla De Smedt; Tim Clijmans; Jeroen Dille; Michiel Mulier
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  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

Review 7.  [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

8.  Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision.

Authors:  Gareth H Prosser; Piers J Yates; David J Wood; Stephen E Graves; Richard N de Steiger; Lisa N Miller
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow-up.

Authors:  Michael A Mont; David R Marker; Jonathan M Smith; Slif D Ulrich; Mike S McGrath
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 10.  Is patient selection important for hip resurfacing?

Authors:  Ryan M Nunley; Craig J Della Valle; Robert L Barrack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.