Literature DB >> 18310753

Birmingham hip resurfacing: is acetabular bone conserved?

P Moonot1, P J Singh, M D Cronin, Y E Kalairajah, T G Kavanagh, R E Field.   

Abstract

Hip resurfacing is a bone-conserving procedure with respect to proximal femoral resection, but there is debate in the literature as to whether the same holds true for the acetabulum. We have investigated whether the Birmingham hip resurfacing conserves acetabular bone. Between 1998 and 2005, 500 Birmingham hip resurfacings were performed by two surgeons. Between 1996 and 2005 they undertook 700 primary hip replacements, with an uncemented acetabular component. These patients formed the clinical material to compare acetabular component sizing. The Birmingham hip resurfacing group comprised 350 hips in men and 150 hips in women. The uncemented total hip replacement group comprised 236 hips in men and 464 hips in women. Age- and gender-matched analysis of a cohort of patients for the sizes of the acetabular components required for the two types of replacement was also undertaken. Additionally, an analysis of the sizes of the components used by each surgeon was performed. For age-matched women, the mean outside diameter of the Birmingham hip resurfacing acetabular components was 2.03 mm less than that of the acetabular components in the uncemented total hip replacements (p < 0.0001). In similarly matched men there was no significant difference (p = 0.77). A significant difference was also found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for Birmingham hip resurfacing for both men (p = 0.0015) and women (p = 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for uncemented total hip replacement in either men or women (p = 0.06 and p = 0.14, respectively). This suggests that variations in acetabular preparation also influence acetabular component size in hip resurfacing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18310753     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B3.18803

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


  7 in total

1.  Bone mineral density in the femoral neck increases after hip resurfacing: a cohort with five-year follow-up.

Authors:  Charles A Willis-Owen; Henry D Atkinson; Roger D Oakeshott
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-08-22       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

Review 5.  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

6.  Hip resurfacing: expectations and limitations.

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

Review 7.  Have the media influenced the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty? A review of UK print media.

Authors:  A Malviya; G H Stafford; R J F Villar; R N Villar
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.891

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.