Literature DB >> 21037347

The relationship between head-neck ratio and pseudotumour formation in metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip.

G Grammatopoulos1, H Pandit, D W Murray, H S Gill.   

Abstract

Pseudotumour is a rare but important complication of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing that occurs much more commonly in women than in men. We examined the relationship between head-neck ratio (HNR) and pseudotumour formation in 18 resurfaced hips (18 patients) revised for pseudotumour and 42 asymptomatic control resurfaced hips (42 patients). Patients in whom pseudotumour formation had occurred had higher pre-operative HNR than the control patients (mean 1.37 (sd 0.10) vs mean 1.30 (sd 0.08) p = 0.001). At operation the patients with pseudotumours had a greater reduction in the size of their femoral heads (p = 0.035) and subsequently had greater neck narrowing (mean 10.1% (sd 7.2) vs mean 3.8% (sd 3.2) p < 0.001). No female patient with a pre-operative HNR ≤ 1.3 developed a pseudotumour. We suggest that reducing the size of the femoral head, made possible by a high pre-operative HNR, increases the risk of impingement and edge loading, and may contribute to high wear and pseudotumour formation. As the incidence of pseudotumour is low in men, it appears safe to perform resurfacing in men. However, this study suggests that it is also reasonable to resurface in women with a pre-operative HNR ≤ 1.3.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21037347     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B11.24640

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


  9 in total

1.  Simple isolation method for the bulk isolation of wear particles from metal on metal bearing surfaces generated in a hip simulator test.

Authors:  Fang Lu; Matt Royle; Ferdinand V Lali; Alister J Hart; Simon Collins; Jonathan Housden; Julia C Shelton
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 3.896

2.  Reply to letter to the editor: 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:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray; Ronan B C Treacy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Do ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing differ from those in metal-on-metal THA at long-term followup?

Authors:  Lucia Savarino; Matteo Cadossi; Eugenio Chiarello; Nicola Baldini; Sandro Giannini
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Hip resurfacing in a district general hospital: 6-year clinical results using the ReCap hip resurfacing system.

Authors:  Walter van der Weegen; Henk J Hoekstra; Thea Sijbesma; Shennah Austen; Rudolf W Poolman
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Postoperative radiograph of the hip arthroplasty: what the radiologist should know.

Authors:  Jan Vanrusselt; Milan Vansevenant; Geert Vanderschueren; Filip Vanhoenacker
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2015-10-20

8.  Magnetic resonance imaging features of complications following hip replacement: A pictorial review.

Authors:  Khushboo Pilania; Bhavin Jankharia
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun

9.  What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Andrew Judge; Antti Eskelinen; David W Murray; Hemant G Pandit
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 3.717

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.