Literature DB >> 19880889

Clinical and radiological outcome of stemmed hip replacement after revision from metal-on-metal resurfacing.

V K Eswaramoorthy1, L C Biant, R E Field.   

Abstract

We report the outcome of total hip replacement in 29 failed metal-on-metal resurfacing hip replacements in which the primary surgery was performed between August 1995 and February 2005. The mean length of follow-up was five years (1.7 to 11.7). Of the 29 hip resurfacings, 19 acetabular components and all the femoral components were revised (28 uncemented stems and one cemented stem). There were no deaths and none of the patients was lost to follow-up. None of the hips underwent any further revision. The results of the revision resurfacing group were compared with those of a control group of age-matched patients. In the latter group there were 236 primary total hip replacements and 523 resurfacings performed during the same period by the same surgeons. The outcome of the revision resurfacing group was comparable with that of the stemmed primary hip replacement group but was less good than that of the primary hip resurfacing group. Long-term follow-up is advocated to monitor the outcome of these cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19880889     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B11.22651

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  10 in total

1.  Revision of Metal-on-metal Hip Prostheses Results in Marked Reduction of Blood Cobalt and Chromium Ion Concentrations.

Authors:  Olli Lainiala; Aleksi Reito; Petra Elo; Jorma Pajamäki; Timo Puolakka; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  What are the risks accompanying the reduced wear benefit of low-clearance hip resurfacing?

Authors:  Joseph Daniel; Hena Ziaee; Amir Kamali; Chandra Pradhan; Derek McMinn
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Do revised hip resurfacing arthroplasties lead to outcomes comparable to those of primary and revised total hip arthroplasties?

Authors:  William Desloges; Isabelle Catelas; Toru Nishiwaki; Paul R Kim; Paul E Beaulé
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls.

Authors:  Jacob A Haynes; Jeffrey B Stambough; Robert L Barrack; Denis Nam
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

5.  Hip resurfacing: a 40-year perspective.

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

Review 6.  Metal-on-Metal Bearing: Is This the End of the Line? We Do Not Think So.

Authors:  Henri Migaud; Sophie Putman; Antoine Combes; Charles Berton; Donatien Bocquet; Laurent Vasseur; Julien Girard
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-09-11

7.  Mid-term outcomes of uncemented or cemented arthroplasty revision following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty failure: a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Zhao Chen; Wenli Chen; Weiguang Yu; Mingdong Zhao; Jinluan Lin; Chaoming Zhou; Hui Chen; Junxing Ye; Xianshang Zeng; Jintao Zhuang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 1.671

8.  Revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty using cemented arthroplasty: a mean 10-year follow-up of 157 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Jinluan Lin; Chunlong Huang; Weiguang Yu; Guowei Han; Xiangzhen Liu; Xianshang Zeng
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.671

9.  Uncemented versus cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement in patients with femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Wenlu Liu; Huanyi Lin; Xianshang Zeng; Meiji Chen; Weiwei Tang; Ting Zhou; Weiguang Yu; Qilong Liu; Guixing Xu
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 1.671

10.  Complications and re-revisions after revisions of 528 metal-on-metal hips because of adverse reaction to metal debris.

Authors:  Olli Lainiala; Aleksi Reito; Jyrki Nieminen; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 3.717

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.