PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to take stock of hip resurfacing according to the principle of "evidence based medicine". Our main objective was to compare the rate of revision of resurfacing implants with survival limits set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE) literature research databases up to July 2012 as recommended by the PRISMA statement. Data extraction focused on functional outcomes, complications and survival rates. The survival rates of implants were analysed according to the mean of the series in comparison to the NICE criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies were identified and included 26,456 cases with an average of 499.17 ± 856.7 (range, 38-5000) cases per study. The median survival was 95.57 % ± 3.7 % (range, 84-100). The percentage of studies which satisfied the criteria set by NICE was 69.8 %. In terms of cumulative revision rates pondered by the number of implants, BHR®, Conserve Plus® and Cormet® showed the best results. The mean postoperative score was 91.2 ± 7.72 (range, 68.3-98.6). There was no statistically significant difference between implants in terms of functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the current evidence base, this review of the literature emphasises the importance of certain parameters that can improve the results of resurfacing. The type of implant seems to play an important role as does patient selection.
PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to take stock of hip resurfacing according to the principle of "evidence based medicine". Our main objective was to compare the rate of revision of resurfacing implants with survival limits set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE) literature research databases up to July 2012 as recommended by the PRISMA statement. Data extraction focused on functional outcomes, complications and survival rates. The survival rates of implants were analysed according to the mean of the series in comparison to the NICE criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies were identified and included 26,456 cases with an average of 499.17 ± 856.7 (range, 38-5000) cases per study. The median survival was 95.57 % ± 3.7 % (range, 84-100). The percentage of studies which satisfied the criteria set by NICE was 69.8 %. In terms of cumulative revision rates pondered by the number of implants, BHR®, Conserve Plus® and Cormet® showed the best results. The mean postoperative score was 91.2 ± 7.72 (range, 68.3-98.6). There was no statistically significant difference between implants in terms of functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the current evidence base, this review of the literature emphasises the importance of certain parameters that can improve the results of resurfacing. The type of implant seems to play an important role as does patient selection.
Authors: Wolf-Christoph Witzleb; M Arnold; F Krummenauer; A Knecht; H Ranisch; K-P Günther Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2008-01-23 Impact factor: 2.175
Authors: Ryszard Uklejewski; Piotr Rogala; Mariusz Winiecki; Andrzej Kędzia; Piotr Ruszkowski Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 3.411