Literature DB >> 20884969

Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure.

A D Carrothers1, R E Gilbert, A Jaiswal, J B Richardson.   

Abstract

Despite the increasing interest and subsequent published literature on hip resurfacing arthroplasty, little is known about the prevalence of its complications and in particular the less common modes of failure. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of failure of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and to analyse the reasons for it. From a multi-surgeon series (141 surgeons) of 5000 Birmingham hip resurfacings we have analysed the modes, prevalence, gender differences and times to failure of any hip requiring revision. To date 182 hips have been revised (3.6%). The most common cause for revision was a fracture of the neck of the femur (54 hips, prevalence 1.1%), followed by loosening of the acetabular component (32 hips, 0.6%), collapse of the femoral head/avascular necrosis (30 hips, 0.6%), loosening of the femoral component (19 hips, 0.4%), infection (17 hips, 0.3%), pain with aseptic lymphocytic vascular and associated lesions (ALVAL)/metallosis (15 hips, 0.3%), loosening of both components (five hips, 0.1%), dislocation (five hips, 0.1%) and malposition of the acetabular component (three hips, 0.1%). In two cases the cause of failure was unknown. Comparing men with women, we found the prevalence of revision to be significantly higher in women (women = 5.7%; men = 2.6%, p < 0.001). When analysing the individual modes of failure women had significantly more revisions for loosening of the acetabular component, dislocation, infection and pain/ALVAL/metallosis (p < 0.001, p = 0.004, p = 0.008, p = 0.01 respectively). The mean time to failure was 2.9 years (0.003 to 11.0) for all causes, with revision for fracture of the neck of the femur occurring earlier than other causes (mean 1.5 years, 0.02 to 11.0). There was a significantly shorter time to failure in men (mean 2.1 years, 0.4 to 8.7) compared with women (mean 3.6 years, 0.003 to 11.0) (p < 0.001).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20884969     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.23504

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


  28 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

2.  Indications and results of hip resurfacing.

Authors:  D J W McMinn; J Daniel; H Ziaee; C Pradhan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Acetabular component thickness does not affect mid-term clinical results in hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Mariam Al-Hamad; Michel J Le Duff; Karren M Takamura; Harlan C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  [Approach to painful hip resurfacing].

Authors:  L Gerdesmeyer; H Gollwitzer; P Diehl; M Fuerst; M Schmitt-Sody
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 5.  Do Complication Rates Differ by Gender After Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Bryan D Haughom; Brandon J Erickson; Michael D Hellman; Joshua J Jacobs
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Are There Long-term Benefits to Cementing the Metaphyseal Stem in Hip Resurfacing?

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff; Sandeep K Bhaurla
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Surgical management of osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Benedikt Proffen; Patrick Vavken; Ronald Dorotka
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2013-04-26

8.  Hip resurfacing: not your average hip replacement.

Authors:  Scott Siverling; Ioonna Felix; S Betty Chow; Elizabeth Niedbala; Edwin P Su
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2012-03

Review 9.  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

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.