Literature DB >> 19556097

Cementless femoral components in young patients: review and meta-analysis of total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing.

Bryan D Springer1, Sarah E Connelly, Susan M Odum, Thomas K Fehring, William L Griffin, J Bohannon Mason, John L Masonis.   

Abstract

The study purpose was to analyze current results of modern cementless femoral components in young patients having total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing. Twenty-two studies (n = 5907; hips = 6408) evaluating modern cementless THA in young patients and 15 studies evaluating hip resurfacing (n = 3002; hips = 3269) were included. Meta-analysis techniques were used to pool failure rates. The pooled failure rate for THA using femoral revision for mechanical failure as an end point was 1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0%-1.7%) at a mean 8.4 years of follow-up. At a mean of 3.9 years of follow-up, the pooled mechanical failure rate of the femoral component for hip resurfacing was 2.6% (95% CI, 2.0-3.4). In conclusion, the enthusiasm for hip resurfacing should be tempered by these data. Longer follow-up and direct comparison trials are required to confirm these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19556097     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.032

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


  22 in total

1.  High revision rate at 5 years after hip resurfacing with the Durom implant.

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Ronny Pilz; Urs Munzinger; Otmar Hersche; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  [Durom™ hip resurfacing. Short- to midterm clinical and radiological outcome].

Authors:  J Goronzy; M Stiehler; S Kirschner; K-P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Bone mineral density in the femoral neck increases after hip resurfacing: a cohort with five-year follow-up.

Authors:  Charles A Willis-Owen; Henry D Atkinson; Roger D Oakeshott
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-08-22       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Cementless versus Cemented Fixation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Usage, Costs, and Complications during the Inpatient Period.

Authors:  Chukwuweike U Gwam; Nicole E George; Jennifer I Etcheson; Samuel Rosas; Johannes F Plate; Ronald E Delanois
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 5.  [Evidence-based update in hip arthroplasty].

Authors:  H Gollwitzer; L Gerdesmeyer; R Gradinger; R von Eisenhart-Rothe
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 6.  Has total hip arthroplasty in patients 30 years or younger improved? A systematic review.

Authors:  Muyibat A Adelani; James A Keeney; Allison Palisch; Susan A Fowler; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Long Term Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty in Young Patients under 30.

Authors:  Emilios E Pakos; Nikolaos K Paschos; Theodoros A Xenakis
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2014-09-15

8.  Birmingham hip resurfacing: five to eight year results.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Timo Puolakka; Jorma Pajamäki
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-06-19       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Femoral bone is preserved using cemented polished stems in young patients.

Authors:  Donald W Howie; Kerry Costi; Margaret A McGee; Angela Standen; Lucian B Solomon
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Fresh-stored osteochondral allografts for the treatment of femoral head defects: surgical technique and preliminary results.

Authors:  Yona Kosashvili; Guy Raz; David Backstein; Oren Ben Lulu; Allan E Gross; Oleg Safir
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.