Literature DB >> 16365116

Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a comparison with hybrid total hip arthroplasty.

J M Loughead1, I Starks, D Chesney, J N S Matthews, A W McCaskie, J P Holland.   

Abstract

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The majority of these patients are younger than 55 years of age, and in this group the key benefits include conservation of femoral bone stock and the potential reduction in the rate of dislocation afforded by the larger resurfacing head. Early aseptic loosening is well recognised in patients younger than 55 years of age, and proponents of resurfacing believe that the improved wear characteristics of the metal-on-metal bearing may improve the long-term survival of this implant. There has been some concern, however, that resurfacing may not be conservative of acetabular bone. We compared a series of 33 consecutive patients who had a hybrid total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented acetabular component and a cemented femoral implant, with 35 patients undergoing a Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. We compared the diameter of the implanted acetabulum in both groups and, because they were not directly comparable, we corrected for patient size by measuring the diameter of the contralateral femoral head. The data were analysed using unpaired t-tests and analysis of covariance. There was a significantly larger acetabulum in the Birmingham arthroplasty group (mean diameter 56.6 mm vs 52.0 mm; p < 0.001). However, this group had a significantly larger femoral head diameter on the contralateral side (p = 0.03). Analysis of covariance revealed a significant difference between the mean size of the acetabular component implanted in the two operations. The greatest difference in the size of acetabulum was in those patients with a larger diameter of the femoral head. This study shows that more bone is removed from the acetabulum in hip resurfacing than during hybrid total hip arthroplasty, a difference which is most marked in larger patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16365116     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.16764

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  17 in total

Review 1.  [Results for endoprosthetic care in patients younger than 50 years].

Authors:  J Ziegler; M Amlang; M Bottesi; S Kirschner; W-C Witzleb; K-P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  [Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip].

Authors:  M Rudert; L Gerdesmeyer; H Rechl; P Juhnke; R Gradinger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Surface replacement of the hip can result in decreased acetabular bone stock.

Authors:  Michael Tanzer; Dylan Tanzer; Karen Smith
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Are leg length and hip offset comparable after hip resurfacing and cementless total hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  S Patel; R R Thakrar; J Bhamra; F Hossain; M Tengrootenhuysen; F S Haddad
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  Frank Stinchfield Award: Identification of the At-risk Genotype for Development of Pseudotumors Around Metal-on-metal THAs.

Authors:  Brett K J Kilb; Andrew P Kurmis; Michael Parry; Karen Sherwood; Paul Keown; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  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

7.  [Surgical principles and clinical experiences with the DUROM hip resurfacing system using a lateral approach].

Authors:  Sascha Gravius; Torsten Mumme; Oliver Weber; Philipp Berdel; Dieter Christian Wirtz
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.154

8.  The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Donald S Garbuz; Michael Tanzer; Nelson V Greidanus; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Hip resurfacing: expectations and limitations.

Authors:  K De Smet; A Calistri
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Early catastrophic failure of Birmingham acetabular dysplasia cup in revision arthroplasty: a case report.

Authors:  Manjunath Ramappa; Andrew Port
Journal:  Cases J       Date:  2009-07-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.