Michael Olsen1, Emil H Schemitsch. 1. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 800, 55 Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario M5C1R6, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fracture in hip resurfacing has been attributed to technical error during femoral head preparation. In the absence of fracture, several radiographic findings have been speculated to increase the risk of femoral component failure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We examined whether (1) the use of navigation to reduce technical errors during femoral head preparation reduces the incidence of femoral neck fractures in the short-term followup period; and (2) alignment of the femoral component with the use of computer navigation reduces the incidence of femoral neck thinning, femoral stem radiolucencies, and stem migration. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the first 100 Birmingham Hip Resurfacings performed in 94 prospectively followed patients between October 2005 and November 2007. We examined all radiographs on last followup. Eighty-six patients of the 94 patients had a minimum followup of 2 years (mean, 2.5 years; range, 2-4.1 years). RESULTS: There were no cases of femoral neck notching, varus femoral component alignment, or femoral neck fractures in the series. Neck thinning of greater than 10% was observed in three patients and perimetaphyseal stem lucencies were noted in 10 patients. In three patients, the metaphyseal stem showed varus migration relative to the postoperative stem-shaft angle at latest followup. There was one revision to a total hip arthroplasty for deep sepsis. The overall survivorship at 4 years was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of imageless computer navigation to reduce technical errors in hip resurfacing may reduce the incidence of femoral neck fracture in the short-term. However, neck thinning, stem radiolucencies, and stem migration remain radiographic sequelae of hip resurfacing despite the use of navigation for placement of the femoral component.
BACKGROUND:Femoral neck fracture in hip resurfacing has been attributed to technical error during femoral head preparation. In the absence of fracture, several radiographic findings have been speculated to increase the risk of femoral component failure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We examined whether (1) the use of navigation to reduce technical errors during femoral head preparation reduces the incidence of femoral neck fractures in the short-term followup period; and (2) alignment of the femoral component with the use of computer navigation reduces the incidence of femoral neck thinning, femoral stem radiolucencies, and stem migration. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the first 100 Birmingham Hip Resurfacings performed in 94 prospectively followed patients between October 2005 and November 2007. We examined all radiographs on last followup. Eighty-six patients of the 94 patients had a minimum followup of 2 years (mean, 2.5 years; range, 2-4.1 years). RESULTS: There were no cases of femoral neck notching, varus femoral component alignment, or femoral neck fractures in the series. Neck thinning of greater than 10% was observed in three patients and perimetaphyseal stem lucencies were noted in 10 patients. In three patients, the metaphyseal stem showed varus migration relative to the postoperative stem-shaft angle at latest followup. There was one revision to a total hip arthroplasty for deep sepsis. The overall survivorship at 4 years was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of imageless computer navigation to reduce technical errors in hip resurfacing may reduce the incidence of femoral neck fracture in the short-term. However, neck thinning, stem radiolucencies, and stem migration remain radiographic sequelae of hip resurfacing despite the use of navigation for placement of the femoral component.
Authors: Paul E Beaulé; Jessica L Lee; Michel J Le Duff; Harlan C Amstutz; Edward Ebramzadeh Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Tiruveedhula S Madhu; Mahesh R Akula; Raghu N Raman; Hemant K Sharma; Verne G Johnson Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Harlan C Amstutz; Paul E Beaulé; Frederick J Dorey; Michel J Le Duff; Pat A Campbell; Thomas A Gruen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: M C Koper; M Reijman; E M van Es; J H Waarsing; H W J Koot; S B Keizer; I Jansen; F C van Biezen; J A N Verhaar; P K Bos Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 2.362