Literature DB >> 18757954

Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components.

R De Haan1, P A Campbell, E P Su, K A De Smet.   

Abstract

We have reviewed 42 patients who had revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing procedures, mostly because of problems with the acetabular component. The revisions were carried out a mean of 26.2 months (1 to 76) after the initial operation and most of the patients (30) were female. Malpositioning of the acetabular component resulted in 27 revisions, mostly because of excessive abduction (mean 69.9 degrees ; 56 degrees to 98 degrees ) or insufficient or excessive anteversion. Seven patients had more than one reason for revision. The mean increase in the diameter of the component was 1.8 mm (0 to 4) when exchange was needed. Malpositioning of the components was associated with metallosis and a high level of serum ions. The results of revision of the femoral component to a component with a modular head were excellent, but four patients had dislocation after revision and four required a further revision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18757954     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B9.19891

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


  63 in total

1.  The John Charnley Award: an accurate and extremely sensitive method to separate, display, and characterize wear debris: part 2: metal and ceramic particles.

Authors:  Fabrizio Billi; Paul Benya; Aaron Kavanaugh; John Adams; Harry McKellop; Edward Ebramzadeh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  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

3.  Reduced articular surface of one-piece cups: a cause of runaway wear and early failure.

Authors:  William L Griffin; Christopher J Nanson; Bryan D Springer; Matthew A Davies; Thomas K Fehring
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  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

5.  Failure of a metal on metal hip prosthesis presenting as a destructive soft tissue mass due to ALVAL.

Authors:  Jonathan R B Hutt; Constant Busch; Rod A Hughes
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2010-11-27       Impact factor: 2.631

6.  A simple technique for alignment in total hip resurfacing arthroplasty: technical note and preliminary report.

Authors:  Manuel Villanueva-Martínez; Antonio Ríos-Luna; Angel Villamor-Pérez
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2009-06-09

7.  The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: 5-year clinical and radiographic results from a District General Hospital.

Authors:  B Ollivere; S Duckett; A August; M Porteous
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  High cup angle and microseparation increase the wear of hip surface replacements.

Authors:  Ian J Leslie; Sophie Williams; Graham Isaac; Eileen Ingham; John Fisher
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-04-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  The surgical options and clinical evidence for treatment of wear or corrosion occurring with THA or TKA.

Authors:  Charles A Engh; Henry Ho; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Assessment of inter- and intra-observer reliability in the determination of radiographic version and inclination of the cup in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Timo Puolakka; Antti Paakkala; Jorma Pajamäki
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.