Literature DB >> 18757951

Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a series of 110 consecutive hips with a minimum five-year clinical and radiological follow-up.

G N A Heilpern1, N N Shah, M J F Fordyce.   

Abstract

We report the outcome at a minimum of five years of 110 consecutive metal-on-metal Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasties in 98 patients. The procedures were performed between October 1999 and June 2002 by one surgeon. All patients were followed up clinically and radiologically. The mean follow-up was 71 months (60 to 93). Revision of either component was defined as failure. The mean Harris Hip score at follow-up was 96.4 (53 to 100). The mean Oxford hip score was 41.9 (16 to 57) pre-operatively and 15.4 (12 to 49) post-operatively (p < 0.001). The mean University of California Los Angeles activity score was 3.91 (1 to 10) pre-operatively and 7.5 (4 to 10) post-operatively (p < 0.001). There were four failures giving a survival at five years of 96.3% (95% confidence interval 92.8 to 99.8). When applying a new method to estimate narrowing of the femoral neck we identified a 10% thinning of the femoral neck in 16 hips (14.5%), but the relevance of this finding to the long-term outcome remains unclear. These good medium-term results from an independent centre confirm the original data from Birmingham.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18757951     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B9.20524

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


  34 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

4.  Hip resurfacing revision rates: radiological audit of risk factors.

Authors:  N Ramisetty; K M Krishnan; P F Partington
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 5.  Survival of hard-on-hard bearings in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael G Zywiel; Siraj A Sayeed; Aaron J Johnson; Thomas P Schmalzried; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Surgical management of hip osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Rajiv Gandhi; Anthony V Perruccio; Nizar N Mahomed
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Two-year migration results of the ReCap hip resurfacing system-a radiostereometric follow-up study of 23 hips.

Authors:  Thomas Baad-Hansen; Stig Storgaard Jakobsen; Kjeld Soballe
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-02-27       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 8.  Radiology of the resurfaced hip.

Authors:  Luthfur Rahman; Margaret Hall-Craggs; Sarah K Muirhead-Allwood
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Hip resurfacing data from national joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us?

Authors:  Kristoff Corten; Steven J MacDonald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  The natural history of inflammatory pseudotumors in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sulaiman A Almousa; Nelson V Greidanus; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.