Literature DB >> 19056234

Comparison of bone removed during total hip arthroplasty with a resurfacing or conventional femoral component: a cadaveric study.

Edwin P Su1, Michael Sheehan, Sherwin L Su.   

Abstract

We sought to examine the amount of bone removed during total hip arthroplasty with a resurfacing femoral component, compared to with a conventional, stemmed femoral component, by using 6 male and 4 female cadaveric pelves with attached bilateral proximal femora. Using randomized assignment and order, a total hip arthroplasty with a resurfacing femoral implant was performed on one side, and total hip arthroplasty with a cementless, stemmed femoral implant was performed on the contralateral side. The relationship between native femoral head diameter and the implanted acetabular socket was on average within 2 mm for both procedures. No significant difference was observed in the amount of acetabular bone removed (9.8 g for hip resurfacing vs 8.8 g). However, a resurfacing component resulted in approximated 3 x less bone removal from the femur (25.8 g vs 75.1 g). This study shows that the preservation of femoral bone with a resurfacing femoral component does not result in an increased removal of acetabular bone when compared to the use of a conventional, stemmed femoral component. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19056234     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  13 in total

1.  Are leg length and hip offset comparable after hip resurfacing and cementless total hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  S Patel; R R Thakrar; J Bhamra; F Hossain; M Tengrootenhuysen; F S Haddad
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Acetabular component thickness does not affect mid-term clinical results in hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Mariam Al-Hamad; Michel J Le Duff; Karren M Takamura; Harlan C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Design Considerations for the Next Generation Hip Resurfacing Implant: Commentary.

Authors:  Edwin P Su
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2016-12-19

4.  What should I expect from my recalled Adept Hip Resurfacing?

Authors:  Matteo Cadossi; Silvio Terrando; Andrea Sambri; Giuseppe Tedesco; Antonio Mazzotti; Barbara Bordini; Dalila De Pasquale; Cesare Faldini
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-04-27

5.  A custom-made guide-wire positioning device for hip surface replacement arthroplasty: description and first results.

Authors:  Martijn Raaijmaakers; Frederik Gelaude; Karla De Smedt; Tim Clijmans; Jeroen Dille; Michiel Mulier
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Hip resurfacing: a 40-year perspective.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-09-14

7.  Adoption of hip resurfacing arthroplasty at hospital for special surgery: a cohort study.

Authors:  Edwin P Su; Sherwin L Su
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-09-05

8.  The outcomes of hip resurfacing compared to standard primary total hip arthroplasty in Men.

Authors:  Kimona Issa; Amanda Palich; Tiffany Tatevossian; Bhaveen H Kapadia; Qais Naziri; Michael A Mont
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 9.  The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Toby O Smith; Rachel Nichols; Simon T Donell; Caroline B Hing
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients.

Authors:  Marius Dettmer; Amir Pourmoghaddam; Stefan W Kreuzer
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2015-05-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.