Literature DB >> 21614600

[Approach to painful hip resurfacing].

L Gerdesmeyer1, H Gollwitzer, P Diehl, M Fuerst, M Schmitt-Sody.   

Abstract

Hip resurfacing in young patients has been increasingly performed within the last decade. In comparison to standard total hip arthroplasty the failure rate remains high. Age and implant size have a significant effect on the risk of revision for primary total resurfacing and the risk of revision increases with increasing age. At 7 years the cumulative revision rate for patients is 5% and females have more than twice the cumulative revision rate as males. Even in hip resurfacing arthroplasty which has been performed in a perfect manner, a certain percentage of patients suffer from persistent pain for various reasons, such as neck fracture, iliopsoas tendinopathy, metal hypersensitivity, such as aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis associated lesions (ALVAL) and aseptic loosening. Diagnostic work-up of the painful hip resurfacing is challenging even for experienced surgeons. Recommendations for the diagnostic procedure are described.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21614600     DOI: 10.1007/s00132-011-1757-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  41 in total

1.  Metallosis and metal-on-metal bearings.

Authors:  P E Beaulé; P Campbell; H C Amstutz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter.

Authors:  Daniel Kluess; Carmen Zietz; Tobias Lindner; Wolfram Mittelmeier; Klaus-Peter Schmitz; Rainer Bader
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.717

3.  Modes of implant failure after hip resurfacing: morphological and wear analysis of 267 retrieval specimens.

Authors:  Michael M Morlock; Nick Bishop; Jozef Zustin; Michael Hahn; Wolfgang Rüther; Michael Amling
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 4.  The influence of the size of the component on the outcome of resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a review of the literature.

Authors:  A J Shimmin; W L Walter; C Esposito
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-04

5.  Failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a spectrum of clinical presentations and operative findings.

Authors:  James A Browne; C Dustin Bechtold; Daniel J Berry; Arlen D Hanssen; David G Lewallen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Risk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing.

Authors:  S Glyn-Jones; H Pandit; Y-M Kwon; H Doll; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-12

7.  Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings.

Authors:  H Pandit; S Glyn-Jones; P McLardy-Smith; R Gundle; D Whitwell; C L M Gibbons; S Ostlere; N Athanasou; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-07

8.  Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study.

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

9.  [Allergy diagnostics in implant intolerance].

Authors:  P Thomas; M Thomsen
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 10.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrew Shimmin; Paul E Beaulé; Pat Campbell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.284

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.