Literature DB >> 19142691

Does hip resurfacing require larger acetabular cups than conventional THA?

Florian D Naal1, Michael S H Kain, Otmar Hersche, Urs Munzinger, Michael Leunig.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Hip resurfacing is femoral bone preserving, but there is controversy regarding the amount of bone removed at the acetabular side. We therefore compared the implanted acetabular cup sizes in primary THAs between two resurfacing devices and a conventional press-fit cup using a series of 2134 THAs (Allofit cup 1643 hips, Durom Hip Resurfacing 249 hips, and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing 242 hips). The effects of patient demographics and cup position in the horizontal plane also were assessed. After controlling for gender, patients were matched for height, weight, body mass index, and age. The mean size for Allofit cups was smaller than the sizes for Durom and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing cups in women (49.9 mm, 51.6 mm, 52.3 mm, respectively) and men (55.1 mm, 56.7 mm, 57.8 mm; respectively). Although patient height was associated with the implanted cup size, the cup position in the horizontal plane had no effect on the size used. Larger cups were used with hip resurfacing than for THA with a conventional press-fit cup. However, additional studies are needed to determine whether these small differences have any clinical implications in the long term. The association of cup size and patient height should be considered in future studies comparing component sizes among different implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19142691      PMCID: PMC2650072          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0689-2

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


  24 in total

1.  A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement.

Authors:  P-A Vendittoli; M Lavigne; J Girard; A G Roy
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-08

2.  Restoration of acetabular bone loss 2005.

Authors:  Allan E Gross
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 3.  Femoral component sizing and positioning in hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Philippe Poitras
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2007

4.  Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a comparison with hybrid total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J M Loughead; I Starks; D Chesney; J N S Matthews; A W McCaskie; J P Holland
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-01

5.  Management of acetabular bone stock deficiency.

Authors:  Stephen B Murphy
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Sports after hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Florian-D Naal; Nicola A Maffiuletti; Urs Munzinger; Otmar Hersche
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Scott T Ball; Michel J Le Duff; Harlan C Amstutz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 8.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: what have we learned?

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Pat Campbell; Michel J Le Duff
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2007

Review 9.  Why total hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Thomas P Schmalzried
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Femoral neck fractures after metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  David R Marker; Thorsten M Seyler; Riyaz H Jinnah; Ronald E Delanois; Slif D Ulrich; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  4 in total

1.  Surface replacement of the hip can result in decreased acetabular bone stock.

Authors:  Michael Tanzer; Dylan Tanzer; Karen Smith
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  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

3.  Hip resurfacing: expectations and limitations.

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

Review 4.  Prevalence of Failure due to Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris in Modern, Medium and Large Diameter Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements--The Effect of Novel Screening Methods: Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Olli Lainiala; Petra Elo; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.