Literature DB >> 16669400

Lessons learned from early clinical experience and results of 300 ASR hip resurfacing implantations.

T Siebel1, S Maubach, M M Morlock.   

Abstract

Between August 2003 and April 2005, 300 ASR metal-on-metal resurfacing hip endoprostheses were implanted by the first author and a fellow surgeon. The mean age at surgery was 56.8 years (18-75.9 years) and mean body mass index was 27.6 kg/m2 (range, 19-41 kg/m2). The mean follow-up time was 202 days. The mean Harris hip score improved from 44 pre-operatively to 89 at 3 months post-operatively. In total, eight (2.7 per cent) cases [five neck fractures (1.66 per cent) and three cup revisions (1 per cent)] were revised. Two neck fractures occurred within a group of seven cases of femoral neck notching detected postoperatively; one neck fracture occurred out of two cases of incomplete seating of the femoral implant. A significantly higher (p < 0.001) failure rate was observed for patients who had undergone a previous osteosynthesis of the proximal femur (three revisions in a group of 15 patients). Revision cases had a significantly greater body mass index (p = 0.031). A learning curve was evident from the reduction in revisions from 5 in the first 100 surgical procedures to 2 in the next 100 and 1 in the last 100. These results show the importance of accurate surgical technique and careful patient selection for fourth-generation hip resurfacing implants,

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16669400     DOI: 10.1243/095441105X69079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H        ISSN: 0954-4119            Impact factor:   1.617


  16 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

Review 2.  Surgical management of hip osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Rajiv Gandhi; Anthony V Perruccio; Nizar N Mahomed
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  [Reasons for failure of hip resurfacing implants. A failure analysis based on 250 revision specimens].

Authors:  M M Morlock; N Bishop; F Stahmer; J Zustin; G Sauter; M Hahn; M Krause; W Rüther; M Amling
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Computer-assisted hip resurfacing planning using Lie group shape models.

Authors:  Mohamed S Hefny; John F Rudan; Randy E Ellis
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  Medium term review of the ASR implant system: A single surgeon series.

Authors:  M Curtin; E Murphy; C Bryan; D Jadaan; M Jadaan; D Bergin; C G Murphy; W Curtin
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2017-02-03

6.  Innovation in orthopaedic surgery as it relates to evidence-based practice.

Authors:  M Hofbauer; B Muller; C D Murawski; J Karlsson; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Patient views on financial relationships between surgeons and surgical device manufacturers.

Authors:  Mark W Camp; Allan E Gross; Martin F McKneally
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.089

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.  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

Review 10.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: an analysis of safety and revision rates.

Authors:  S Sehatzadeh; K Kaulback; L Levin
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2012-08-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.