Literature DB >> 17006372

Failure mechanisms of total hip resurfacing: implications for the present.

Merrill A Ritter1, Joseph D Lutgring, Michael E Berend, Jeffery L Pierson.   

Abstract

In the past decade, there has been a renewed interest in hip resurfacing due to recent design improvements. It is unclear whether the recent improvements have accounted for all of the previous failure mechanisms. We determined the long-term performance of hip resurfacing, while paying special attention to the mechanisms of failure. We retrospectively reviewed 62 patients (65 hips) who had Indiana conservative hip prostheses implanted between 1977 and 1981. Forty-one of 62 joints had failed, representing a failure rate of 66%. The time to failure averaged 9.7 years with a range of 6 months to 21.5 years. There were 23 femoral failures (37%). Eleven were caused by femoral fracture, and 12 were caused by femoral loosening. All late femoral failures (greater than 10 years postoperatively) showed narrowing of the femoral neck secondary to stress shielding. There were 18 acetabular failures (29%) with 10 failing secondary to polyethylene wear and eight failing secondary to acetabular loosening. Failure of the Indiana conservative hip prosthesis continues over time related to femoral and acetabular failure mechanisms. These data should be considered in the context of growing enthusiasm for resurfacing with new bearing surfaces and cementless fixation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17006372     DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000238849.23744.8e

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


  7 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.  Curved-stem hip resurfacing: minimum 20-year followup.

Authors:  James W Pritchett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-03-13       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Karen Pykerman; Jason Werle; Diane Lorenzetti; Tracy Wasylak; Tom Noseworthy; Donald A Dick; Greg O'Connor; Aish Sundaram; Sanne Heintzbergen; Cy Frank
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Painful prosthesis: approaching the patient with persistent pain following total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Prisco Piscitelli; Giovanni Iolascon; Massimo Innocenti; Roberto Civinini; Alessandro Rubinacci; Maurizio Muratore; Michele D'Arienzo; Paolo Tranquilli Leali; Anna Maria Carossino; Maria Luisa Brandi
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2013-05

6.  Stress fracture of femoral stem of hip resurfacing a cause of sudden onset hip pain- A case report and review of literature.

Authors:  Hemanta Das; Tahawwar Minhas; Rohit Rambani
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-05-13

7.  The effects of necrotic lesion size and orientation of the femoral component on stress alterations in the proximal femur in hip resurfacing - a finite element simulation.

Authors:  Ching-Lung Tai; Yung-Chou Chen; Pang-Hsin Hsieh
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 2.362

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.