Literature DB >> 16877595

A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement.

P-A Vendittoli1, M Lavigne, J Girard, A G Roy.   

Abstract

We have undertaken a prospective, randomised study to compare conservation of acetabular bone after total hip replacement and resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. We randomly assigned 210 hips to one of the two treatment groups. Uncemented, press-fit acetabular components were used for both. No significant difference was found in the mean diameter of acetabular implant inserted in the groups (54.74 mm for total hip replacement and 54.90 mm for resurfacing arthroplasty). In seven resurfacing procedures (6.8%), the surgeon used a larger size of component in order to match the corresponding diameter of the femoral component. With resurfacing arthroplasty, conservation of bone is clearly advantageous on the femoral side. Our study has shown that, with a specific design of acetabular implant and by following a careful surgical technique, removal of bone on the acetabular side is comparable with that of total hip replacement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16877595     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B8.17615

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


  24 in total

1.  [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

2.  [Dislocation as a rare complication of resurfacing of the hip joint. Case report and meta-analysis].

Authors:  S Lieske; M John; C Rimasch; K Mahlfeld
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 1.000

3.  Correlation between groin pain and cup design of hip-resurfacing implants: a prospective study.

Authors:  Julien Girard; Erwan Pansard; Reda Ouahes; Henri Migaud; Cyril Delay; Laurent Vasseur
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  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

5.  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

Review 6.  [Results of 5 to 10-year follow-up after hip resurfacing. A systematic analysis of the literature on long-term results].

Authors:  M C M Klotz; S J Breusch; M Hassenpflug; R G Bitsch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  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

8.  An initial experience with hip resurfacing versus cementless total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Justin Michael Arndt; Glenn D Wera; Victor M Goldberg
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2013-06-25

9.  Digital templating and preoperative deformity analysis with standard imaging software.

Authors:  Amir A Jamali
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Hip resurfacing: expectations and limitations.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.