Literature DB >> 25381402

Metal-on-metal hip surface replacement: the routine use is not justified.

M J Dunbar1, V Prasad1, B Weerts1, G Richardson1.   

Abstract

Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip (MoMHR) has enjoyed a resurgence in the last decade, but is now again in question as a routine option for osteoarthritis of the hip. Proponents of hip resurfacing suggest that its survival is superior to that of conventional hip replacement (THR), and that hip resurfacing is less invasive, is easier to revise than THR, and provides superior functional outcomes. Our argument serves to illustrate that none of these proposed advantages have been realised and new and unanticipated serious complications, such as pseudotumors, have been associated with the procedure. As such, we feel that the routine use of MoMHR is not justified. ©2014 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hip resurfacing; metal on metal

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25381402     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34426

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray; Ronan B C Treacy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Hip Replacement or Hip Resurfacing with a Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Acetabular Bearing: A Qualitative and Quantitative Preference Study.

Authors:  James W Pritchett
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2020-05-11

3.  What Are the Benefits of Hip Resurfacing in Appropriate Patients? A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Authors:  Alexander S McLawhorn; Leonard T Buller; Jason L Blevins; Yuo Yu Lee; Edwin P Su
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2019-12-04

4.  Implant survival and radiographic outcome of total hip replacement in patients less than 20 years old.

Authors:  Masako Tsukanaka; Vera Halvorsen; Lars Nordsletten; Ingvild Ø EngesæTer; Lars B EngesæTer; Anne Marie Fenstad; Stephan M Röhrl
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  Explant analysis of the Biomet Magnum/ReCap metal-on-metal hip joint.

Authors:  S C Scholes; B J Hunt; V M Richardson; D J Langton; E Smith; T J Joyce
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 5.853

6.  Lessons learnt from early failure of a patient trial with a polymer-on-polymer resurfacing hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Job L C Van Susante; Nico Verdonschot; L Paul A Bom; Pawel Tomaszewski; Pat Campbell; Edward Ebramzadeh; B Wim Schreurs
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 3.717

7.  Long - term survivorship and clinical results of the navigated withdrawn ASR ™.

Authors:  Johannes H M van Ochten; Dariusch Arbab; Peer Eysel; Dietmar P König
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-08-16

8.  Poor 10-year survivorship of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Matti Seppänen; Mikko Karvonen; Petri Virolainen; Ville Remes; Pekka Pulkkinen; Antti Eskelinen; Antti Liukas; Keijo T Mäkelä
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Finite element stress analysis of the bearing component and bone resected surfaces for total ankle replacement with different implant material combinations.

Authors:  Jian Yu; Dahang Zhao; Wen-Ming Chen; Pengfei Chu; Shuo Wang; Chao Zhang; Jiazhang Huang; Xu Wang; Xin Ma
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty after eight years - a retrospective study.

Authors:  Felipe Spinelli Bessa; Ronald Delgadillo Fuentes; Helder de Souza Miyahara; Alberto Tesconi Croci; Leandro Ejnisman; José Ricardo Negreiros Vicente
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2018-10-10
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.