Literature DB >> 21705557

Why large-head metal-on-metal hip replacements are painful: the anatomical basis of psoas impingement on the femoral head-neck junction.

J P Cobb1, K Davda, A Ahmad, S J Harris, M Masjedi, A J Hart.   

Abstract

Large-head metal-on-metal total hip replacement has a failure rate of almost 8% at five years, three times the revision rate of conventional hip replacement. Unexplained pain remains a feature of this type of arthroplasty. All designs of the femoral component of large-head metal-on-metal total hip replacements share a unique characteristic: a subtended angle of 120° defining the proportion of a sphere that the head represents. Using MRI, we measured the contact area of the iliopsoas tendon on the femoral head in sagittal reconstruction of 20 hips of patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement. We also measured the articular extent of the femoral head on 40 normal hips and ten with cam-type deformities. Finally, we performed virtual hip resurfacing on normal and cam-type hips, avoiding overhang of the metal rim inferomedially. The articular surface of the femoral head has a subtended angle of 120° anteriorly and posteriorly, but only 100° medially. Virtual surgery in a normally shaped femoral head showed a 20° skirt of metal protruding medially where iliopsoas articulates. The excessive extent of the large-diameter femoral components may cause iliopsoas impingement independently of the acetabular component. This may be the cause of postoperative pain with these implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21705557     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B7.26054

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


  10 in total

1.  Cam type femoro-acetabular impingement: quantifying the diagnosis using three dimensional head-neck ratios.

Authors:  Milad Masjedi; Charles S Marquardt; Isabella M H Drummond; Simon J Harris; Justin P Cobb
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 2.  Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of extra-articular hip impingement syndromes.

Authors:  Naoki Nakano; Grace Yip; Vikas Khanduja
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Ideal femoral head size in total hip arthroplasty balances stability and volumetric wear.

Authors:  Michael B Cross; Denis Nam; David J Mayman
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-09-13

Review 4.  Extra-articular hip impingement: a narrative review of the literature.

Authors:  Scott W Cheatham
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2016-03

5.  Outcomes after fluoroscopy-guided iliopsoas bursa injection for suspected iliopsoas tendinopathy.

Authors:  Christoph A Agten; Andrea B Rosskopf; Patrick O Zingg; Cynthia K Peterson; Christian W A Pfirrmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-10-03       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Diagnosis of adverse local tissue reactions following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Brian P Chalmers; Kevin I Perry; Michael J Taunton; Tad M Mabry; Matthew P Abdel
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

7.  Is there a relationship between psoas impingement and increased trochanteric retroversion?

Authors:  Juan Gómez-Hoyos; Ricardo Schröder; Manoj Reddy; Ian J Palmer; Anthony Khoury; Hal David Martin
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2015-03-31

Review 8.  Evolution of the human hip. Part 2: muscling the double extension.

Authors:  Tom Hogervorst; Evie E Vereecke
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2014-10-28

9.  Head size in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Georgios Tsikandylakis; Maziar Mohaddes; Peter Cnudde; Antti Eskelinen; Johan Kärrholm; Ola Rolfson
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-05-21

10.  Arthroscopic treatment of iliopsoas impingement syndrome after hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paolo Di Benedetto; Giuseppe Niccoli; Stefano Magnanelli; Alessandro Beltrame; Renato Gisonni; Vanni Cainero; Araldo Causero
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2019-01-10
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.