Literature DB >> 17968547

Does surgical approach influence component positioning with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing?

G J C Myers1, D Morgan, C W McBryde, K O'Dwyer.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the component positioning of Birmingham Hip Resurfacings implanted through a posterolateral approach with those inserted via a direct lateral approach. Sixty-four hip resurfacings for osteoarthritis were carried out by a single surgeon: 23 through a direct lateral approach and 41 through a posterolateral approach. No significant differences in implant survival, Oxford Hip Scores or complications were found. The mean abduction angle for the acetabular component was lower (p < 0.007) with a posterior approach (mean: 37.5 degrees ; range 26-50 degrees ) than the lateral approach (mean: 43 degrees ; range 30-56 degrees ). There was no significant difference in stem orientation, either in flexion/extension or varus/valgus, between the two groups. This study demonstrates that components can be implanted in an acceptable orientation through either approach but that the posterior approach results in greater closure of the acetabular component.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17968547      PMCID: PMC2899254          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-007-0469-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  20 in total

1.  Factors predisposing to dislocation of the Thompson hemiarthroplasty: 22 dislocations in 338 patients.

Authors:  Jarkko Pajarinen; Vesa Savolainen; Ilkka Tulikoura; Jan Lindahl; Eero Hirvensalo
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2003-02

2.  Femoral head blood flow during hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Patricia Campbell; Paul Shim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Exposure of the hip using a modified anterolateral approach.

Authors:  P K Stephenson; M A Freeman
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Resurfacing arthroplasty. Femoral head viability.

Authors:  G W Bradley; M A Freeman; P A Revell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  The direct lateral approach to the hip.

Authors:  K Hardinge
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1982

6.  Surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip.

Authors:  H Wagner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1978 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Anatomy of the medial femoral circumflex artery and its surgical implications.

Authors:  E Gautier; K Ganz; N Krügel; T Gill; R Ganz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-07

8.  Some anatomical and mechanical considerations relevant to the surface replacement of the femoral head.

Authors:  M A Freeman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1978 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Paul E Beaulé; Frederick J Dorey; Michel J Le Duff; Pat A Campbell; Thomas A Gruen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis.

Authors:  J Daniel; P B Pynsent; D J W McMinn
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-03
View more
  9 in total

1.  Indications and results of hip resurfacing.

Authors:  D J W McMinn; J Daniel; H Ziaee; C Pradhan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  [Surgical approaches in hip resurfacing].

Authors:  L Gerdesmeyer; H Gollwitzer; R Bader; M Rudert
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Fluoroscopy assessment during anterior minimally invasive hip replacement is more accurate than with the posterior approach.

Authors:  Weifeng Ji; Nathaniel Stewart
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-05-10       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Radiological validation of a fluoroscopic guided technique for femoral implant positioning during hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Philippe Chiron; Régis Pailhé; Nicolas Reina; David Ancelin; Akash Sharma; Laurent Maubisson; Jean-Michel Laffosse
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Birmingham hip resurfacing: five to eight year results.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Timo Puolakka; Jorma Pajamäki
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-06-19       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital.

Authors:  Mark C Callanan; Bryan Jarrett; Charles R Bragdon; David Zurakowski; Harry E Rubash; Andrew A Freiberg; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system in patients aged 65 and older at up to ten years of follow-up.

Authors:  Regis Pailhe; Gulraj S Matharu; Akash Sharma; Paul B Pynsent; Ronan B Treacy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-12-28       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Prospective study comparing functional outcomes and revision rates between hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty: preliminary results for 2 years.

Authors:  Régis Pailhé; Nicolas Reina; Etienne Cavaignac; Akash Sharma; Valérie Lafontan; Jean-Michel Laffosse; Philippe Chiron
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2013-07-29

9.  Radiographic results on acetabular cup placement with the SuperPath technique: a retrospective study of 756 cases.

Authors:  Agostino Di Maro; Santo Creaco; Mattia Albini; Mahfuz Latiff; Marco Merlo
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 2.362

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.