Literature DB >> 21462151

Birmingham hip resurfacing in patients who are seventy years of age or older.

Andrew D Carrothers1, Robin E Gilbert, James B Richardson.   

Abstract

There is no published literature to support mid to long term results of hip resurfacing (HR) arthroplasty in patients over the age of 70 years. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the function HR in this age group (70 or older at the time of surgery) at medium to long term follow-up. Between July 1997 and November 2002, the Oswestry Outcome Centre independently and prospectively collected data on 5000 Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHRs). 106 had been implanted in elderly patients who were 70 years of age or older. The post-operative Harris and Merle D'Aubigné and Postel (MDP) hip scores and causes for revision were used to ascertain function and implant survival. Hip scores for the older BHR patients were compared with those from younger patients. The average age at surgery of the elderly BHR cohort was 73.2 years (range, 70.0 to 87.9 years) with a mean follow-up of 7.1 years (range, 0.5 to 10.9 years). Four patients had a femoral neck fracture and required conversion to a conventional total hip replacement. There were no patients lost to follow-up and no dislocations in this series. The median Harris hip score (HHS) was significantly better in the younger BHR group compared with the elderly BHR group, (96 vs. 94 p=0.008). There was no significant difference in recovery rates after surgery. There was a significantly higher rate of revision in women than men among the elderly patients (male= 1 of 65 (1.5%); women = 3 of 19 (15.8%), p=0.03). At latest follow-up the elderly patients continued to function well when compared with the younger BHR patients. There was a high mid to long term success rate after HR in patients who were 70 years of age or older, without the failure burden possibly anticipated. Elderly patients had a poorer functional outcome, but a difference in HHS of two points may be of only minor clinical significance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21462151     DOI: 10.5301/HIP.2011.6500

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hip Int        ISSN: 1120-7000            Impact factor:   2.135


  5 in total

1.  Intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric fractures after hip resurfacing arthroplasty - Do we have the answer? Case report and literature review.

Authors:  Samik Banerjee; Timothy Little; Nicholas Little
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2014-01-29

Review 2.  Hip resurfacing: a systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Régis Pailhé; Akash Sharma; Nicolas Reina; Etienne Cavaignac; Philippe Chiron; Jean-Michel Laffosse
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Karen Pykerman; Jason Werle; Diane Lorenzetti; Tracy Wasylak; Tom Noseworthy; Donald A Dick; Greg O'Connor; Aish Sundaram; Sanne Heintzbergen; Cy Frank
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system in patients aged 65 and older at up to ten years of follow-up.

Authors:  Regis Pailhe; Gulraj S Matharu; Akash Sharma; Paul B Pynsent; Ronan B Treacy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-12-28       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  A Comparative Cohort Study With a 20-Year Age Gap: Hip Resurfacing in Patients Aged ≤35 Years and Patients Aged ≥55 Years.

Authors:  Rachelle Morgenstern; Thomas Alastair Denova; Renee Ren; Edwin P Su
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-12-24
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.