Literature DB >> 22528380

Socket position determines hip resurfacing 10-year survivorship.

Harlan C Amstutz1, Michel J Le Duff, Alicia J Johnson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty designs have been used for over a decade. Risk factors for short-term failure include small component size, large femoral head defects, low body mass index, older age, high level of sporting activity, and component design, and it is established there is a surgeon learning curve. Owing to failures with early surgical techniques, we developed a second-generation technique to address those failures. However, it is unclear whether the techniques affected the long-term risk factors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We (1) determined survivorship for hips implanted with the second-generation cementing technique; (2) identified the risk factors for failure in these patients; and (3) determined the effect of the dominant risk factors on the observed modes of failure.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the first 200 hips (178 patients) implanted using our second-generation surgical technique, which consisted of improvements in cleaning and drying the femoral head before and during cement application. There were 129 men and 49 women. Component orientation and contact patch to rim distance were measured. We recorded the following modes of failure: femoral neck fracture, femoral component loosening, acetabular component loosening, wear, dislocation, and sepsis. The minimum followup was 25 months (mean, 106.5 months; range, 25-138 months).
RESULTS: Twelve hips were revised. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 98.0% at 5 years and 94.3% at 10 years. The only variable associated with revision was acetabular component position. Contact patch to rim distance was lower in hips that dislocated, were revised for wear, or were revised for acetabular loosening. The dominant modes of failure were related to component wear or acetabular component loosening.
CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular component orientation, a factor within the surgeon's control, determines the long-term success of our current hip resurfacing techniques. Current techniques have changed the modes of failure from aseptic femoral failure to wear or loosening of the acetabular component. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22528380      PMCID: PMC3462852          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2347-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  36 in total

1.  Accuracy of EBRA-FCA in the measurement of migration of femoral components of total hip replacement. Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis.

Authors:  R Biedermann; M Krismer; B Stöckl; P Mayrhofer; E Ornstein; H Franzén
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1999-03

2.  The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3 to 9 year follow-up.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff; Patricia A Campbell; Frederick J Dorey
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Learning from the learning curve in total hip resurfacing: a radiographic analysis.

Authors:  Suzanne Witjes; José M H Smolders; Paul E Beaulé; Pieternel Pasker; Job L C Van Susante
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities.

Authors:  G Bergmann; G Deuretzbacher; M Heller; F Graichen; A Rohlmann; J Strauss; G N Duda
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips.

Authors:  D L Back; R Dalziel; D Young; A Shimmin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-03

6.  Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty. Surgical Technique.

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:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Are there benefits to one- versus two-stage procedures in bilateral hip resurfacing?

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Edwin P Su; Michel J Le Duff; Vincent A Fowble
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

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.  Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis.

Authors:  J Daniel; P B Pynsent; D J W McMinn
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-03

10.  Long-term results with the Wagner metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prosthesis.

Authors:  R Bohm; A Schraml; A Schuh
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.756

View more
  11 in total

1.  A comparison of two different navigated hip replacement techniques on leg length discrepancy.

Authors:  T N Jennison; P Craig; Edward D Davis
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-02-21

2.  Are There Long-term Benefits to Cementing the Metaphyseal Stem in Hip Resurfacing?

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff; Sandeep K Bhaurla
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  What are the current clinical issues in wear and tribocorrosion?

Authors:  Daniel J Berry; Matthew P Abdel; John J Callaghan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Can patients return to high-impact physical activities after hip resurfacing? A prospective study.

Authors:  Julien Girard; Bruno Miletic; Anthony Deny; Henri Migaud; Nicolas Fouilleron
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Risk of impingement and third-body abrasion with 28-mm metal-on-metal bearings.

Authors:  Ian C Clarke; Jean-Yves Lazennec; Adrien Brusson; Christina Savisaar; John G Bowsher; Michelle Burgett; Thomas K Donaldson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  What causes unexplained pain in patients with metal-on metal hip devices? A retrieval, histologic, and imaging analysis.

Authors:  Danyal H Nawabi; Nader A Nassif; Huong T Do; Kirsten Stoner; Marcella Elpers; Edwin P Su; Timothy Wright; Hollis G Potter; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls.

Authors:  Jacob A Haynes; Jeffrey B Stambough; Robert L Barrack; Denis Nam
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

8.  Does femoral neck to cup impingement affect metal ion levels in hip resurfacing?

Authors:  Michel J Le Duff; Alicia J Johnson; Andrew J Wassef; Harlan C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016.

Authors:  Robert Sershon; Rishi Balkissoon; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

10.  Contact patch to rim distance predicts metal ion levels in hip resurfacing.

Authors:  James P Yoon; Michel J Le Duff; Alicia J Johnson; Karren M Takamura; Edward Ebramzadeh; Harlan C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.