Literature DB >> 23540536

A safe zone for acetabular component position in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: winner of the 2012 HAP PAUL award.

Fei Liu1, Thomas P Gross.   

Abstract

A safe zone for acetabular component positioning in hip resurfacing (RAIL: Relative Acetabular Inclination Limit) was calculated based on implant size and acetabular inclination angle (AIA). For AIA below the RAIL, there were no adverse wear failures or dislocations, and only 1% of cases with ion levels above 10 μg/L. Other than high inclination angle and small bearing size, female gender was the only other factor that correlated with high ion levels in the multivariate analysis. Seven hundred sixty-one hip resurfacing cases are included in this study. The UCLA activity score, femoral shaft angle, body mass index, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, combined range of motion, diagnosis, age, gender, implant brand, AIA, bearing size, and duration of implantation were analyzed to determine the potential risk factors for elevated metal ion levels. These findings apply to sub hemispheric metal-on-metal bearings with similar coverage arcs as the Biomet and Corin hip resurfacing brands. Additional problems may occur when these bearings are connected with trunions on stems for total hip arthroplasty.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acetabular inclination angle; adverse wear; hip arthroplasty; hip resurfacing; metal ion; pseudotumor

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23540536     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  7 in total

1.  Trunnion corrosion as a cause of recurrent pseudotumor.

Authors:  Alejandro D Zylberberg; Isabelle Catelas; Luca Gala; Paul R Kim
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2015-01-30

2.  Lewinnek Safe Zone References are Frequently Misquoted.

Authors:  Aonnicha Burapachaisri; Ameer Elbuluk; Edem Abotsi; Jim Pierrepont; Seth A Jerabek; Aaron J Buckland; Jonathan M Vigdorchik
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-11-26

3.  Cup position alone does not predict risk of dislocation after hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christina I Esposito; Brian P Gladnick; Yuo-Yu Lee; Stephen Lyman; Timothy M Wright; David J Mayman; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  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

Review 5.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients younger than 50 years: a retrospective analysis : 1285 cases, 12-year survivorship.

Authors:  Melissa D Gaillard; Thomas P Gross
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Acetabular Debonding: An Investigation of Porous Coating Delamination in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Eric Robinson; Dani Gaillard-Campbell; Thomas P Gross
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2018-11-01

7.  Reducing the failure rate of hip resurfacing in dysplasia patients: a retrospective analysis of 363 cases.

Authors:  Melissa D Gaillard; Thomas P Gross
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.362

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.