Literature DB >> 21373801

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

Wierd P Zijlstra1, Inge van den Akker-Scheek, Mark J M Zee, Jos J A M van Raay.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We aimed to test the claim of greater range of motion (ROM) with large femoral head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.
METHODS: We compared 28-mm metal-on-polyethylene (MP) total hip arthroplasty with large femoral head metal-on-metal (MM) total hip arthroplasty in a randomised clinical trial. ROM one year postoperatively was determined in 50 patients. Mean head sizes were 28 mm (MP) and 48 mm (MM).
RESULTS: After one year, the large head MM group showed greater improvement in internal rotation (14 degrees) than the 28 mm group (seven degrees).There were no significant differences in the absolute values of postoperative internal rotation, external rotation, flexion, extension, abduction and abduction.
CONCLUSIONS: Absolute postoperative range of motion did not differ between the two groups. The improvement in internal rotation was greater after large femoral head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. It is however questionable whether this difference is clinically relevant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21373801      PMCID: PMC3224629          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-011-1233-7

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


  22 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.  Femoral fit predicts radiologic changes, but not clinical results, in Mallory-head total hip arthroplasties.

Authors:  Taco Gosens; Judith C Sluimer; Arnold D Kester; Evert J van Langelaan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement.

Authors:  J G DeLee; J Charnley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1976 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Hip motion related to age and sex.

Authors:  S Svenningsen; T Terjesen; M Auflem; V Berg
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1989-02

6.  Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification.

Authors:  A F Brooker; J W Bowerman; R A Robinson; L H Riley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1973-12       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening.

Authors:  T A Gruen; G M McNeice; H C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1979-06       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Interobserver reliability in measuring flexion, internal rotation, and external rotation of the hip using a plurimeter.

Authors:  P R Croft; E S Nahit; G J Macfarlane; A J Silman
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 10.  Posterior versus lateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty in adults with osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Brigitte M Jolles; Earl R Bogoch
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-07-19
View more
  10 in total

1.  Bony impingement limits design-related increases in hip range of motion.

Authors:  Adam Bunn; Clifford W Colwell; Darryl D D'Lima
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Minimum ten-year results of a 28-mm metal-on-metal bearing in cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients fifty years of age and younger.

Authors:  Moritz M Innmann; Tobias Gotterbarm; Jan Philippe Kretzer; Christian Merle; Volker Ewerbeck; Stefan Weiss; Peter R Aldinger; Marcus R Streit
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Large fixed-size metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: higher serum metal ion levels in patients with pain.

Authors:  Christiaan Smeekes; Bastiaan Ongkiehong; Bart van der Wal; Ron Wolterbeek; Jan-Ferdinand Henseler; Rob Nelissen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Influence of implant design on blood metal ion concentrations in metal-on-metal total hip replacement patients.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Fiona Berryman; Lesley Brash; Paul B Pynsent; Ronan B Treacy; David J Dunlop
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  Large Diameter Head in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  G Neupane; R Madhusudhan; A Shrestha; R Vaishya
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 1.251

6.  Effect of femoral head size and surgical approach on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Wierd P Zijlstra; Bas De Hartog; Liza N Van Steenbergen; B Willem Scheurs; Rob G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 3.717

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.  Prospective Study Showing Results of Large-Diameter Femoral Heads After Cementless Total Hip Replacement.

Authors:  Gur Aziz Singh Sidhu; Harjot Kaur; Hakam Singh; Jamie Hind; Neil Ashwood
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-01-10

9.  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

Review 10.  Increased Mortality in Metal-on-Metal versus Non-Metal-on-Metal Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty at 10 Years and Longer Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  B G Pijls; J M T A Meessen; J W Schoones; M Fiocco; H J L van der Heide; A Sedrakyan; R G H H Nelissen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.