Literature DB >> 18676934

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with an uncemented femoral component. A seven-year follow-up study.

Thomas P Gross1, Fei Liu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with hybrid fixation has been introduced as an alternative to standard total hip arthroplasty, especially for young and active patients. There are few studies in the literature on the midterm results of cementless femoral side resurfacing. The purpose of this study was to present our seven-year clinical results of a series of twenty cementless metal-on-metal hip resurfacing procedures.
METHODS: Between 1999 and 2000, eighteen patients (twenty hips) underwent primary metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with uncemented femoral and acetabular components. One patient was lost to follow-up. This left eleven men and six women, who had a mean age of forty-five years at the time of surgery. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed prospectively, and the results were analyzed.
RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 7.4 years. There were four revisions, none of which was due to aseptic failure of the femoral component. Two were due to loosening of the acetabular component, one was due to a late hematogenous infection, and one was due to persistent pain despite normal radiographic findings. The mean preoperative Harris hip score was 54 points, and it increased to 94 points at the time of the last follow-up. Radiographic examination of the hips for which the procedure was successful revealed no femoral or acetabular radiolucencies, no migration of any implant, and no osteolysis. The radiographs of one patient (two hips) showed substantial narrowing of the femoral necks (a mean of 12%), which stabilized at three years postoperatively. This patient had a Harris hip score of 100 points for both hips at six years.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that cementless femoral fixation may be a viable alternative to fixation with cement in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Further study of this concept in larger numbers of patients is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18676934     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00614

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  7 in total

1.  Intraoperative radiographs for placing acetabular components in hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Thomas P Gross; Fei Liu; Lee Webb
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Hip Resurfacing: International Perspectives: Review Article.

Authors:  Julien Girard
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2016-07-15

3.  Is it Time for Cementless Hip Resurfacing?

Authors:  Julien Girard
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-09-13

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

5.  Risk factor analysis for early femoral failure in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the effect of bone density and body mass index.

Authors:  Thomas P Gross; Fei Liu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Reducing the failure rate of hip resurfacing in dysplasia patients: a retrospective analysis of 363 cases.

Authors:  Melissa D Gaillard; Thomas P Gross
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 7.  Prevalence of Failure due to Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris in Modern, Medium and Large Diameter Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements--The Effect of Novel Screening Methods: Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Olli Lainiala; Petra Elo; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.