Literature DB >> 21122957

Range of motion of large head total hip arthroplasty is greater than 28 mm total hip arthroplasty or hip resurfacing.

Martin Lavigne1, Muthu Ganapathi, Sophie Mottard, Julien Girard, Pascal-André Vendittoli.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reduced range of motion of the hip has a detrimental influence on lower limb function. Large diameter head total hip arthroplasty may theoretically have a greater potential for restoring normal hip range of motion due to greater head-neck diameter ratio, and hence provide better function compared to conventional or hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
METHOD: At minimum one year follow-up, range of motion of the operated and contra lateral hips was clinically assessed using digital photographs and bony landmarks in a clinical comparative study. We assessed if 1) large diameter head total hip arthroplasty (55 patients) restores better hip range of motion compared to 28 mm total hip arthroplasty (50 patients) or hip resurfacing (60 patients) 2) large diameter head total hip arthroplasty achieves same hip range of motion as contra lateral normal hips and 3) hip range of motion correlates with the WOMAC score.
FINDINGS: The large diameter head total hip arthroplasty group had significantly greater total arcs of motion (approximately 20°), mostly due to an increase of hip flexion and external rotation, but did not reach normal hip motion. The hip range of motion showed significant correlation with the WOMAC score, especially the flexion arc.
INTERPRETATION: The better hip range of motion of large diameter head total hip arthroplasty is likely due to the greater head to neck diameter ratio and hence seems to be the best option to optimize range of hip motion and improve function after hip arthroplasty.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21122957     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)        ISSN: 0268-0033            Impact factor:   2.063


  10 in total

1.  Frank Stinchfield Award: Identification of the At-risk Genotype for Development of Pseudotumors Around Metal-on-metal THAs.

Authors:  Brett K J Kilb; Andrew P Kurmis; Michael Parry; Karen Sherwood; Paul Keown; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  A forty millimetre head significantly improves range of motion compared with a twenty eight millimetre head in total hip arthroplasty using a computed tomography-based navigation system.

Authors:  Kosuke Tsuda; Keiji Haraguchi; Junichiro Koyanagi; Shintaro Takahashi; Ryo Sugama; Keiju Fujiwara
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  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

4.  The natural history of inflammatory pseudotumors in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sulaiman A Almousa; Nelson V Greidanus; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  What Is the Natural History of Asymptomatic Pseudotumors in Metal-on-metal THAs at Mid-term Followup?

Authors:  Sujith Konan; Clive P Duncan; Bassam S Masri; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Center of Mass Compensation during Gait in Hip Arthroplasty Patients: Comparison between Large Diameter Head Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing.

Authors:  Vicky Bouffard; Julie Nantel; Marc Therrien; Pascal-André Vendittoli; Martin Lavigne; François Prince
Journal:  Rehabil Res Pract       Date:  2011-09-18

7.  No benefit on functional outcomes and dislocation rates by increasing head size to 36 mm in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yu-Der Lu; Shih-Hsiang Yen; Feng-Chih Kuo; Jun-Wen Wang; Ching-Jen Wang
Journal:  Biomed J       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 4.910

8.  Despite higher revision rate, MoM large-head THA offers better clinical scores than HR: 14-year results from a randomized controlled trial involving 48 patients.

Authors:  Lazaros Kostretzis; Martin Lavigne; Marc-Olivier Kiss; Maged Shahin; Janie Barry; Pascal-André Vendittoli
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Discrepancy in the Responsiveness to Hip Range of Motion Between Harris and Oxford Hip Scores.

Authors:  Toshiyuki Kawai; Koji Goto; Yutaka Kuroda; Yaichiro Okuzu; Shuichi Matsuda
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2022-01-20

10.  Similar range of motion and function after resurfacing large-head or standard total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jeannette Østergaard Penny; Ole Ovesen; Jens-Erik Varmarken; Søren Overgaard
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 3.717

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.