Literature DB >> 18797977

Surface replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty.

Mike S McGrath1, David R Marker, Thorsten M Seyler, Slif D Ulrich, Michael A Mont.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Conversion of a failed surface hip replacement to a conventional total hip arthroplasty is reportedly a straightforward procedure with excellent results. We compared perioperative parameters, complications, and clinical as well as radiographic outcomes of 39 hemi and total hip resurfacing conversions with conventional THAs. The hips were matched by diagnosis, gender, age, body mass index, preoperative Harris hip score, and followup time to a cohort of primary conventional THAs performed during the same time period by the same surgeon. The mean operative time was longer (by 19 minutes) for the conversions, but other perioperative parameters were similar. At a mean followup of 45 months (range, 24-63 months), the mean Harris hip scores were similar in the two groups (92 points versus 94 points for the conversion and conventional hips, respectively). Thirty-eight of 39 stems were well-aligned and appeared osseointegrated. When a resurfaced hip fails, conversion to conventional THA has similar early clinical and radiographic outcomes to primary conventional THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic (retrospective comparative study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18797977      PMCID: PMC2600984          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0478-y

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


  26 in total

1.  The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mauricio Silva; Kee Haeng Lee; Christian Heisel; Mylene A Dela Rosa; Thomas P Schmalzried
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Surface replacement hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Authors:  M W Hungerford; M A Mont; R Scott; C Fiore; D S Hungerford; K A Krackow
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Evolution and future of surface replacement of the hip.

Authors:  H C Amstutz; P Grigoris; F J Dorey
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.601

4.  Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement.

Authors:  J G DeLee; J Charnley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1976 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Resurfacing of only the femoral head for osteonecrosis. Long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  C L Nelson; B H Walz; J M Gruenwald
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 7.  Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: the concerns.

Authors:  S J MacDonald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Use of TARA hemiarthroplasty in advanced osteonecrosis.

Authors:  R D Scott; J S Urse; R Schmidt; B E Bierbaum
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 4.757

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.  Femoral head resurfacing for the treatment of osteonecrosis in the young patient.

Authors:  Anthony Adili; Robert T Trousdale
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  8 in total

1.  Hip resurfacing in patients who have osteonecrosis and are 25 years or under.

Authors:  Siraj A Sayeed; Aaron J Johnson; D Alex Stroh; Thomas P Gross; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Current concepts on osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Authors:  Joaquin Moya-Angeler; Arianna L Gianakos; Jordan C Villa; Amelia Ni; Joseph M Lane
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-09-18

3.  What are the risks accompanying the reduced wear benefit of low-clearance hip resurfacing?

Authors:  Joseph Daniel; Hena Ziaee; Amir Kamali; Chandra Pradhan; Derek McMinn
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Do the potential benefits of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing justify the increased cost and risk of complications?

Authors:  Kevin J Bozic; Christine M Pui; Matthew J Ludeman; Thomas P Vail; Marc D Silverstein
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Metal-on-Metal Bearing: Is This the End of the Line? We Do Not Think So.

Authors:  Henri Migaud; Sophie Putman; Antoine Combes; Charles Berton; Donatien Bocquet; Laurent Vasseur; Julien Girard
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-09-11

6.  Management of femoral head osteonecrosis: Current concepts.

Authors:  Sujit Kumar Tripathy; Tarun Goyal; Ramesh Kumar Sen
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.251

7.  Osteonecrosis of the hip: is there a difference in the survivorship of total hip arthroplasty with or without previous vascular iliac bone grafting?

Authors:  Wai-Wang Chau; Jonathan Patrick Ng; Hiu-Woo Lau; Michael Tim-Yun Ong; Kwong-Yin Chung; Kevin Ki-Wai Ho
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Hip resurfacing: expectations and limitations.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.