Literature DB >> 25362881

Basic principles and uniform terminology for the head-neck junction in hip replacement.

Paul H Werner1, Harmen B Ettema, Florian Witt, Michael M Morlock, Cees C P M Verheyen.   

Abstract

Recent problems with large head metal on metal hip replacements have spiked renewed interest in the head-neck junction. A thorough knowledge of the principles of the locking mechanism, the assembly technique and affecting factors on the strength of this junction is needed. Currently a confusing variability in terms is used to describe this junction. This overcomplicates an already complex issue. The purpose of this literature review is to collect and list the different terms used and to propose a uniform terminology. Two authors independently searched the electronic databases of PubMed, CINAHL and MEDLINE with specific key words and combinations according to the PRISMA guidelines. The initial search yielded a total of 518 articles with ultimately 53 articles included in the present analysis. No consensus for a uniform term for the 2 sides of the head-stem junction was found. Since there is already pronounced variability in taper designs between different manufacturers (even so similarly named, e.g. "12/14"), a uniform terminology could be the first step to simplify the situation. "Male" and "female taper" is proposed as the appropriate terminology for the stem and head junction in hip replacement, respectively. The importance of the assembly technique understanding the principles of the locking mechanism is emphasised.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25362881     DOI: 10.5301/hipint.5000204

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hip Int        ISSN: 1120-7000            Impact factor:   2.135


  7 in total

1.  [Spontaneous reposition of a hip prosthesis after atraumatic dislocation].

Authors:  M S Ostapczuk; T Ritte; M Dicks; M Jonas
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  Corrosion of the Head-Stem Taper Junction-Are We on the Verge of an Epidemic?: Review Article.

Authors:  Michael Morlock; Dennis Bünte; Julian Gührs; Nicholas Bishop
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2016-09-20

3.  Histopathological characterization of corrosion product associated adverse local tissue reaction in hip implants: a study of 285 cases.

Authors:  Benjamin F Ricciardi; Allina A Nocon; Seth A Jerabek; Gabrielle Wilner; Elianna Kaplowitz; Steven R Goldring; P Edward Purdue; Giorgio Perino
Journal:  BMC Clin Pathol       Date:  2016-02-27

Review 4.  EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Keith Tucker; Klaus-Peter Günther; Per Kjaersgaard-Andersen; Jörg Lützner; Jan Philippe Kretzer; Rob G H H Nelissen; Toni Lange; Luigi Zagra
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-11-19

5.  Nationwide review of mixed and non-mixed components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Rinne M Peters; Liza N van Steenbergen; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Adelgunde V C M Zeegers; Roy E Stewart; Rudolf W Poolman; Anton H Hosman
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 3.717

6.  Variability in stem taper surface topography affects the degree of corrosion and fretting in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kilian Elia Stockhausen; Christoph Riedel; Alex Victoria Belinski; Dorothea Rothe; Thorsten Gehrke; Felix Klebig; Matthias Gebauer; Michael Amling; Mustafa Citak; Björn Busse
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  To mix or not to mix? Medicolegal implications of mixed components in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Rinne M Peters; Jantina T Hiemstra; Wierd P Zijlstra; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Martin Stevens
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 3.717

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.