Literature DB >> 24780203

Five year results of the first US FDA-approved hip resurfacing device.

Edwin P Su1, Lawrence R Housman2, John L Masonis3, John W Noble4, C Anderson Engh5.   

Abstract

A prospective, multi-center postmarket approval study has been ongoing since May 2006 to assess safety and efficacy of the first US FDA approved hip resurfacing implant. 265 patients have been enrolled at five study sites. The average age of the patients is 51.3 years. There have been 7 revisions (2.4%) in the cohort to date. K-M survival curves for the cohort are 97.6% at 5 years. There is a trend toward a gender difference in implant survivorship, with 98.6% of men and 94.7% of women free from revision. Metal ion analysis revealed median cobalt and chromium levels of 1.5 ppb and 1.7 ppb at 1 year. In this prospective US study, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant is demonstrating results comparable to those in the literature.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  alternative bearings; hip resurfacing; outcomes; total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24780203     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.021

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


  8 in total

1.  Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up.

Authors:  Andrew D Pearle; Jelle P van der List; Lily Lee; Thomas M Coon; Todd A Borus; Martin W Roche
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Survivorship and clinical outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum ten years' follow-up.

Authors:  Md Quamar Azam; Stephen McMahon; Gabrielle Hawdon; Sukesh Rao Sankineani
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Exploring the tumor microenvironment with nanoparticles.

Authors:  Lei Miao; Leaf Huang
Journal:  Cancer Treat Res       Date:  2015

4.  Frequent femoral neck osteolysis with Birmingham mid-head resection resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  Asaad Asaad; Alister Hart; Michael M Y Khoo; Kevin Ilo; Gavin Schaller; Jonathan D J Black; Sarah Muirhead-Allwood
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  A prospective comparative study of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty in younger patients-a minimum of five year follow-up.

Authors:  Ran Tao; Fan Liu; Ya-Ke Liu; Yue Lu; Hua Xu; Yi Cao; Zhen-Yu Zhou; Wei Wang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-02-18       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  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

7.  Hip resurfacing as an outpatient procedure: a comparison of overall cost and review of safety.

Authors:  M D Gaillard-Campbell; C Fowble; L Webb; T P Gross
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2020-01-29

Review 8.  Prevalence of Failure due to Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris in Modern, Medium and Large Diameter Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements--The Effect of Novel Screening Methods: Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Olli Lainiala; Petra Elo; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.