Literature DB >> 18972179

Cementing the metaphyseal stem in metal-on-metal resurfacing: when and why.

Harlan C Amstutz1, Michel J Le Duff.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Initial fixation of the femoral component in hip resurfacing is key to the enduring survival of the prosthesis. Cementing the metaphyseal stem increases the interface area between bone and cement. We compared the clinical and survivorship results of two groups in a cohort of 1000 hips (838 patients) implanted with Conserve((R)) Plus hip resurfacing; one group was resurfaced with a cemented metaphyseal stem (400 hips; Group 1) and the other with a press-fit stem (600 hips; Group 2). We carried out a time-dependent analysis to determine the indications for cementing the stem. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival estimate was 98.2% for Group 1 and 94.4% for Group 2, using any revision as an endpoint. Femoral aseptic failure was reduced in Group 1 compared to Group 2. Cementing the metaphyseal stem is particularly effective for hips with a small femoral component size (< 48 mm) and hips with large femoral defects (> 1 cm). There was no difference between groups in incidence of femoral neck narrowing or femoral neck fractures. Longer followup is needed to determine if cementing the stem can be detrimental to the long-term durability of the femoral implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18972179      PMCID: PMC2600982          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0570-3

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


  18 in total

1.  Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years.

Authors:  R B C Treacy; C W McBryde; P B Pynsent
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-02

2.  Belgium experience with metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty.

Authors:  Koen A De Smet
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.472

3.  Changes in femur stress after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: response to physiological loads.

Authors:  J P Little; F Taddei; M Viceconti; D W Murray; H S Gill
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2007-01-25       Impact factor: 2.063

4.  The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3 to 9 year follow-up.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff; Patricia A Campbell; Frederick J Dorey
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips.

Authors:  D L Back; R Dalziel; D Young; A Shimmin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-03

6.  Porous ingrowth in canine resurfacing hip arthroplasty: analysis of results with up to a 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  W C Kim; H C Amstutz; P F O'Carroll; A K Hedley; I Coster; I Schmidt
Journal:  Hip       Date:  1984

7.  Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty. Surgical Technique.

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:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Narrowing of the neck in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a radiological study.

Authors:  C B Hing; D A Young; R E Dalziel; M Bailey; D L Back; A J Shimmin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-08

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.  Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis.

Authors:  J Daniel; P B Pynsent; D J W McMinn
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-03
View more
  6 in total

1.  Hip resurfacing results for osteonecrosis are as good as for other etiologies at 2 to 12 years.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-09-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Are There Long-term Benefits to Cementing the Metaphyseal Stem in Hip Resurfacing?

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff; Sandeep K Bhaurla
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Socket position determines hip resurfacing 10-year survivorship.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff; Alicia J Johnson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: an analysis of safety and revision rates.

Authors:  S Sehatzadeh; K Kaulback; L Levin
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2012-08-01

Review 5.  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

6.  Femoral component loosening after hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jozef Zustin; Michael Hahn; Michael M Morlock; Wolfgang Rüther; Michael Amling; Guido Sauter
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 2.199

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.