BACKGROUND: The effect of the extent of osteonecrosis on the survival of hip resurfacing for osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) has not been well documented, but is a potentially important variable in the decision to perform resurfacing. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We examined (1) the relationship between the volume of osteonecrosis in the femoral head before surgery and the extent of the residual necrotic bone after femoral head machining, (2) how the extent of the residual necrotic bone relative to the resurfaced femoral head (after femoral head machining) affected the survival of total hip resurfacing for patients with ONFH, and (3) how the extent of the necrotic bone relative to the entire femoral head (before femoral head machining) affected the survival and clinical outcome scores of patients who underwent total hip resurfacing. METHODS: Thirty-three patients (39 hips) who underwent hip resurfacing were reviewed after a mean followup of 8 years. The extent of osteonecrosis in the femoral head and residual osteonecrosis in the implant bony bed after femoral head machining were estimated using a three-dimensional MRI-based templating system. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the extent of osteonecrosis before and after femoral head machining, although the two were well correlated (r = 0.97). The mean percentage of osteonecrosis in the implant bony bed after femoral head machining was 5% smaller than that relative to the entire femoral head (range, -9% to 15%). There were no significant differences in implant survival between groups with small and large osteonecrosis classified by either the total amount of osteonecrosis before surgery or residual osteonecrosis after femoral head machining. CONCLUSION: The extent of osteonecrosis in the femoral head significantly decreased after femoral head machining. Neither the residual osteonecrosis volume in the implant bony bed after femoral head machining nor the total amount of osteonecrosis before femoral head machining had significant influence on the survival of hip resurfacing.
BACKGROUND: The effect of the extent of osteonecrosis on the survival of hip resurfacing for osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) has not been well documented, but is a potentially important variable in the decision to perform resurfacing. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We examined (1) the relationship between the volume of osteonecrosis in the femoral head before surgery and the extent of the residual necrotic bone after femoral head machining, (2) how the extent of the residual necrotic bone relative to the resurfaced femoral head (after femoral head machining) affected the survival of total hip resurfacing for patients with ONFH, and (3) how the extent of the necrotic bone relative to the entire femoral head (before femoral head machining) affected the survival and clinical outcome scores of patients who underwent total hip resurfacing. METHODS: Thirty-three patients (39 hips) who underwent hip resurfacing were reviewed after a mean followup of 8 years. The extent of osteonecrosis in the femoral head and residual osteonecrosis in the implant bony bed after femoral head machining were estimated using a three-dimensional MRI-based templating system. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the extent of osteonecrosis before and after femoral head machining, although the two were well correlated (r = 0.97). The mean percentage of osteonecrosis in the implant bony bed after femoral head machining was 5% smaller than that relative to the entire femoral head (range, -9% to 15%). There were no significant differences in implant survival between groups with small and large osteonecrosis classified by either the total amount of osteonecrosis before surgery or residual osteonecrosis after femoral head machining. CONCLUSION: The extent of osteonecrosis in the femoral head significantly decreased after femoral head machining. Neither the residual osteonecrosis volume in the implant bony bed after femoral head machining nor the total amount of osteonecrosis before femoral head machining had significant influence on the survival of hip resurfacing.
Authors: Andreas Roth; Johannes Beckmann; Klaus Bohndorf; Christian Heiß; Marcus Jäger; Stefan Landgraeber; Uwe Maus; Ulrich Nöth; Klaus M Peters; Christof Rader; Stephan Reppenhagen; Ulrich Smolenski; Ina Kopp; Markus Tingart Journal: Orthopade Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 1.087
Authors: Dewei Zhao; Feng Zhang; Benjie Wang; Baoyi Liu; Lu Li; Shin-Yoon Kim; Stuart B Goodman; Philippe Hernigou; Quanjun Cui; William C Lineaweaver; Jiake Xu; Wolf R Drescher; Ling Qin Journal: J Orthop Translat Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jeremy T Hines; Woo Lam Jo; Quanjun Cui; Michael A Mont; Kyung Hoi Koo; Edward Y Cheng; Stuart B Goodman; Yong Chan Ha; Phillippe Hernigou; Lynne C Jones; Shin Yoon Kim; Takashi Sakai; Nobuhiko Sugano; Takuaki Yamamoto; Mel S Lee; Dewei Zhao; Wolf Drescher; Tae Young Kim; Young Kyun Lee; Byung Ho Yoon; Seung Hoon Baek; Wataru Ando; Hong Seok Kim; Jung Wee Park Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: David Gothard; Emma L Smith; Janos M Kanczler; Cameron R Black; Julia A Wells; Carol A Roberts; Lisa J White; Omar Qutachi; Heather Peto; Hassan Rashidi; Luis Rojo; Molly M Stevens; Alicia J El Haj; Felicity R A J Rose; Kevin M Shakesheff; Richard O C Oreffo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 3.240