Literature DB >> 20157813

Do large femoral heads reduce the risks of impingement in total hip arthroplasty with optimal and non-optimal cup positioning?

Gianluca Cinotti1, Niccolò Lucioli, Andrea Malagoli, Carlo Calderoli, Ferdinando Cassese.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess whether large femoral heads (36-38 mm) improve the range of motion in total hip arthroplasty compared to standard (28-32 mm) femoral heads in the presence of optimal and non-optimal cup positioning. A mathematical model of the hip joint was generated by using a laser scan of a dried cadaveric hip. The range of motion was assessed with a cup inclination and anteversion of reference and with non-optimal cup positions. Large femoral heads increased the range of motion, compared to the 28-mm femoral head, in the presence of a hip prosthesis correctly implanted and even more so in the presence of non-optimal cup positioning. However, with respect to the 32-mm femoral head, large femoral heads showed limited benefits both in the presence of optimal and non-optimal cup positioning.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2010        PMID： 20157813      PMCID： PMC3047653          DOI： 10.1007/s00264-010-0954-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN： 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  24 in total

1.  Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don't do.

Authors:  Roy D Crowninshield; William J Maloney; Douglas H Wentz; Steve M Humphrey; Cheryl R Blanchard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes.

Authors:  Brian R Burroughs; Brian Hallstrom; Gregory J Golladay; Daniel Hoeffel; William H Harris
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Does neck/liner impingement increase wear of ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene liners?

Authors:  Molly M Usrey; Philip C Noble; Lanny J Rudner; Michael A Conditt; Michael V Birman; Richard F Santore; Kenneth B Mathis
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 4.  Containment versus impingement: finding a compromise for cup placement in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  K-H Widmer
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Relationship of femoral head and acetabular size to the prevalence of dislocation.

Authors:  S S Kelley; P F Lachiewicz; J M Hickman; S M Paterno
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention.

Authors:  D E McCollum; W J Gray
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty with 36 and 40-mm femoral heads.

Authors:  Paul F Lachiewicz; Elizabeth S Soileau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Influence of total hip design on dislocation: a computer model and clinical analysis.

Authors:  Douglas E Padgett; Joseph Lipman; Bruce Robie; Bryan J Nestor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Classification and treatment of dislocations of total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  L D Dorr; A W Wolf; R Chandler; J P Conaty
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  The elevated-rim acetabular liner in total hip arthroplasty: relationship to postoperative dislocation.

Authors:  T K Cobb; B F Morrey; D M Ilstrup
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.284
View more
  14 in total

1.  The association between the sagittal femoral stem alignment and the resulting femoral head centre in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michael Müller; Dirk Crucius; Carsten Perka; Stephan Tohtz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-06-13       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Predicting long-term wear performance of hard-on-hard bearing couples: effect of cup orientation.

Authors:  S Shankar; K Gowthaman; M S Uddin
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Stability and trunnion wear potential in large-diameter metal-on-metal total hips: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Jacob M Elkins; John J Callaghan; Thomas D Brown
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  [Hip dislocation after revision arthroplasty : Risk assessment and treatment strategies].

Authors:  P M Prodinger; J Schauwecker; H Mühlhofer; N Harrasser; F Pohlig; C Suren; R von Eisenhart-Rothe
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Bone-on-bone versus hardware impingement in total hips: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Jacob M Elkins; Douglas R Pedersen; John J Callaghan; Thomas D Brown
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2012

6.  Optimal anterior femoral offset for functional range of motion in total hip arthroplasty--a computer simulation study.

Authors:  Masanobu Hirata; Yasuharu Nakashima; Daisuke Hara; Masayuki Kanazawa; Yusuke Kohno; Kensei Yoshimoto; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  CORR Insights®: Otto Aufranc Award: Dual-mobility Constructs in Revision THA Reduced Dislocation, Rerevision, and Reoperation Compared With Large Femoral Heads.

Authors:  Kevin L Garvin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Effects of ball head diameter and stem neck shape in range of motion after total hip arthroplasty: A simulation study.

Authors:  Tsutomu Higashi; Nobuhiro Kaku; Shouhei Noda; Tomonori Tabata; Hiroaki Tagomori; Hiroshi Tsumura
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-09-11

9.  Otto Aufranc Award: Dual-mobility Constructs in Revision THA Reduced Dislocation, Rerevision, and Reoperation Compared With Large Femoral Heads.

Authors:  Molly A Hartzler; Matthew P Abdel; Peter K Sculco; Michael J Taunton; Mark W Pagnano; Arlen D Hanssen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  No clinical difference between large metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and 28-mm-head total hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Wierd P Zijlstra; Inge van den Akker-Scheek; Mark J M Zee; Jos J A M van Raay
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 3.075
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.