Literature DB >> 19583536

Minimally invasive hip resurfacing compared to minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty.

Michael L Swank1, Martha R Alkire.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since its March 2006 FDA approval in the United States, Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) has been a popular alternative to hip arthroplasty for the younger patient population. Data to date has shown a trend toward low incidence of dislocation and good survivorship.
METHODS: 128 patients operated on by a single surgeon from July 2006 to December 2008 were reviewed for complications, pain, and function. A group of single incision, minimally invasive standard total hip replacements (106 cases) in 2008 was used for comparison of the same outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Pain, function, and total Harris Hip scores were all improved by the 2 year mark and better than the total hip group. Overall incision lengths decreased over the study time period. The average age of the BHR recipient was 51 years, approximately 14 years less than the total hip mean age. Pain in the Birmingham group improved by 32 points at the 3 month mark. By the end of 2 years, the Birmingham group Harris Hip score mean was nearly perfect at 98.5 points. Rare incidence of complications, marked decreased pain scores and marked elevation in function were results found in this sample of Birmingham resurfacing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19583536

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis        ISSN: 1936-9719


  8 in total

1.  Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data.

Authors:  Reinhard Schuh; Daniel Neumann; Rauend Rauf; Jochen Hofstaetter; Nikolaus Boehler; Gerold Labek
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Hip resurfacing: a systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Régis Pailhé; Akash Sharma; Nicolas Reina; Etienne Cavaignac; Philippe Chiron; Jean-Michel Laffosse
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  A meta-analysis assessing time for return to sport following hip resurfacing.

Authors:  A Magan; W Wignadasan; B Kayani; G Radhakrishnan; F Ronca; F S Haddad
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 2.928

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.  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

6.  Similar range of motion and function after resurfacing large-head or standard total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jeannette Østergaard Penny; Ole Ovesen; Jens-Erik Varmarken; Søren Overgaard
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 3.717

7.  Prospective study comparing functional outcomes and revision rates between hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty: preliminary results for 2 years.

Authors:  Régis Pailhé; Nicolas Reina; Etienne Cavaignac; Akash Sharma; Valérie Lafontan; Jean-Michel Laffosse; Philippe Chiron
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2013-07-29

Review 8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.