Literature DB >> 18224379

The influence of surgical approach on outcome in Birmingham hip resurfacing.

Callum W McBryde1, Matthew P Revell, Andrew M Thomas, Ronan B Treacy, Paul B Pynsent.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Various approaches have been described for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. We compared the posterolateral and direct lateral approaches for complications, pain, function, and implant survival in the short and medium term for two surgeons in a consecutive series of 790 patients (909 hips; July 1997 to July 2004) followed until July 2007. The direct lateral approach group included 135 resurfacing procedures and the posterolateral group included 774 procedures. There was no difference between the two groups for age or gender. The minimum followup for the anterolateral group was 2 years (mean, 5.1 years; range, 2.0-9.4 years) and for the posterolateral group 2 years (mean, 5.5 years; range, 2.0-9.6 years). There were no differences between the two approaches for complications, additional surgery, implant survival, or Oxford hip scores. The 8-year survival rate was 97.9% (95% confidence interval, 89.9-100) for the direct lateral approach and 97.2% (95% confidence interval, 93.9-99.3) for the posterolateral approach. This study indicates both approaches offer excellent pain reduction and return to function after Birmingham hip resurfacing with no difference in survival or in the incidence of complications. An 8-year survival rate of 97% can be achieved using either the posterolateral approach or the direct lateral approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18224379      PMCID: PMC2504647          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0121-y

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


  27 in total

1.  Perfusion of the femoral head during surgical dislocation of the hip. Monitoring by laser Doppler flowmetry.

Authors:  H P Nötzli; K A Siebenrock; A Hempfing; L E Ramseier; R Ganz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2002-03

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.  Muscle strength following total hip arthroplasty. A comparison of trochanteric osteotomy and the direct lateral approach.

Authors:  R J Minns; R J Crawford; M L Porter; K Hardinge
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  The direct lateral approach to the hip.

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

6.  Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States medicare population.

Authors:  J N Katz; E Losina; J Barrett; C B Phillips; N N Mahomed; R A Lew; E Guadagnoli; W H Harris; R Poss; J A Baron
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  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

8.  The effects of surgical procedures on the blood supply to the femoral head.

Authors:  L A Whiteside; D R Lange; W R Capello; B Fraser
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 5.284

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
  13 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.  Profunda femoris pseudoaneurysm following Birmingham hip resurfacing: an important differential diagnosis for a periarticular cystic mass.

Authors:  M S Thomas; J N O'Hara; A M Davies; Steven L J James
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  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

Review 4.  [Surgical approaches in hip resurfacing].

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

Review 5.  Factors influencing early rehabilitation after THA: a systematic review.

Authors:  Vivek Sharma; Patrick M Morgan; Edward Y Cheng
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  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

Review 7.  [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

8.  Do survival rate and serum ion concentrations 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing provide evidence for continued use?

Authors:  Albrecht Hartmann; Jörg Lützner; Stephan Kirschner; Wolf-Christoph Witzleb; Klaus-Peter Günther
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  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

10.  Histological, histomorphometric and microtomographic analyses of retrieval hip resurfacing arthroplasty failed at different times.

Authors:  Francesca Salamanna; Milena Fini; Annapaola Parrilli; Matteo Cadossi; Nicolò Nicoli Aldini; Gianluca Giavaresi; Deianira Luciani; Sandro Giannini
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.