Literature DB >> 24997652

Outcomes after revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Thomas P Gross1, Fei Liu1.   

Abstract

We report the results of 58 hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRA) revised by a single surgeon with an average of 5.2±2.6 years follow-up. The four most common causes for revision were acetabular component loosening, femoral neck fracture, femoral component loosening, and adverse wear related failure (AWRF). In 95% of cases (55/58), the revision bearing was a large metal-on-metal type including all seven AWRF cases; three cases were revised to ceramic-on-polyethylene. There were two repeat revisions due to acetabular component loosening. Revision of AWRF had an excellent outcome using limited debridement and a stable large metal bearing placed in the correct position. The only problematic group was the one revised for acetabular loosening in which 2/16 (6%) required repeat revision for failure of acetabular fixation.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acetabular position; adverse wear failure; hip arthroplasty; hip resurfacing; hip revision; metal-on-metal

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24997652     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.036

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


  10 in total

1.  CORR Insights(®): What Is the Rerevision Rate After Revising a Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? Analysis From the AOANJRR.

Authors:  Christophe Nich
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  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

3.  Outcomes after revision of metal on metal hip resurfacing to total arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach.

Authors:  Victoire Bouveau; Thomas-Xavier Haen; Joel Poupon; Christophe Nich
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Patient-Reported Outcomes After Revision of Metal-on-Metal Total Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ana Mata-Fink; Daniel J Philipson; Benjamin J Keeney; Dipak B Ramkumar; Wayne E Moschetti; Ivan M Tomek
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 5.  Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty: A Review of Adverse Reactions and Patient Management.

Authors:  James Drummond; Phong Tran; Camdon Fary
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2015-06-26

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.  Uncemented versus cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement in patients with femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Wenlu Liu; Huanyi Lin; Xianshang Zeng; Meiji Chen; Weiwei Tang; Ting Zhou; Weiguang Yu; Qilong Liu; Guixing Xu
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 1.671

8.  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

9.  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

10.  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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.