Literature DB >> 24187361

Surface replacement conversion: results depend upon reason for revision.

E P Su1, S L Su.   

Abstract

Surface hip replacement (SHR) is generally used in younger, active patients as an alternative conventional total hip replacement in part because of the ability to preserve femoral bone. This major benefit of surface replacement will only hold true if revision procedures of SHRs are found to provide good clinical results. A retrospective review of SHR revisions between 2007 and 2012 was presented, and the type of revision and aetiologies were recorded. There were 55 SHR revisions, of which 27 were in women. At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years (0.72 to 6.4), the mean post-operative Harris hip score (HHS) was 94.8 (66 to 100). Overall 23 were revised for mechanical reasons, nine for impingement, 13 for metallosis, nine for unexplained pain and one for sepsis. Of the type of revision surgery performed, 14 were femoral-only revisions; four were acetabular-only revisions, and 37 were complete revisions. We did not find that clinical scores were significantly different between gender or different types of revisions. However, the mean post-operative HHS was significantly lower in patients revised for unexplained pain compared with patients revised for mechanical reasons (86.9 (66 to 100) versus 99 (96 to 100); p = 0.029). There were two re-revisions for infection in the entire cohort. Based on the overall clinical results, we believe that revision of SHR can have good or excellent results and warrants a continued use of the procedure in selected patients. Close monitoring of these patients facilitates early intervention, as we believe that tissue damage may be related to the duration of an ongoing problem. There should be a low threshold to revise a surface replacement if there is component malposition, rising metal ion levels, or evidence of soft-tissue abnormalities.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hip resurfacing; Outcomes; Revision hip; Surface replacement conversion

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24187361     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.32663

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  6 in total

1.  Revision of Metal-on-metal Hip Prostheses Results in Marked Reduction of Blood Cobalt and Chromium Ion Concentrations.

Authors:  Olli Lainiala; Aleksi Reito; Petra Elo; Jorma Pajamäki; Timo Puolakka; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  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

3.  Revision of Metal-on-metal Hip Arthroplasty with Well Fixed and Positioned Acetabular Component Using a Dual-mobility Head and Review of Literature.

Authors:  Guillem Figueras; Ramón Vives Planell; Ramón Serra Fernàndez; Joan Camí Biayna
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2016-10-31

4.  Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Antti Eskelinen; Andrew Judge; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  Poor Survivorship and Frequent Complications at a Median of 10 Years After Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Revision.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Complications and re-revisions after revisions of 528 metal-on-metal hips because of adverse reaction to metal debris.

Authors:  Olli Lainiala; Aleksi Reito; Jyrki Nieminen; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 3.717

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.