Literature DB >> 16645103

Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing.

T C B Pollard1, R P Baker, S J Eastaugh-Waring, G C Bannister.   

Abstract

We compared the five- to seven-year clinical and radiological results of the metal-on-metal Birmingham hip resurfacing with a hybrid total hip arthroplasty in two groups of 54 hips, matched for gender, age, body mass index and activity level. Function was excellent in both groups, as measured by the Oxford hip score, but the Birmingham hip resurfacings had higher University of California at Los Angeles activity scores and better EuroQol quality of life scores. The total hip arthroplasties had a revision or intention-to-revise rate of 8%, and the Birmingham hip resurfacings of 6%. Both groups demonstrated impending failure on surrogate end-points. Of the total hip arthroplasties, 12% had polyethylene wear and osteolysis under observation, and 8% of Birmingham hip resurfacings showed migration of the femoral component. Polyethylene wear was present in 48% of the hybrid hips without osteolysis. Of the femoral components in the Birmingham hip resurfacing group which had not migrated, 66% had radiological changes of unknown significance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16645103     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B5.17354

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


  70 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.  Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data.

Authors:  Reinhard Schuh; Daniel Neumann; Rauend Rauf; Jochen Hofstaetter; Nikolaus Boehler; Gerold Labek
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 3.075

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.  Letter to the editor: The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study.

Authors:  Justin Cobb
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Survival of hard-on-hard bearings in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael G Zywiel; Siraj A Sayeed; Aaron J Johnson; Thomas P Schmalzried; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  2011 Marshall Urist Young Investigator Award: when to release patients to high-impact activities after hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Katherine M Bedigrew; Erin L Ruh; Qin Zhang; John C Clohisy; Robert L Barrack; Ryan M Nunley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  [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

8.  Does surgical approach influence component positioning with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing?

Authors:  G J C Myers; D Morgan; C W McBryde; K O'Dwyer
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  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 10.  A review of health-utility data for osteoarthritis: implications for clinical trial-based evaluation.

Authors:  Hirsch S Ruchlin; Ralph P Insinga
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.