Literature DB >> 25708400

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

Gulraj S Matharu1,2, Hemant G Pandit3, David W Murray3, Ronan B C Treacy4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to assess the ten to 15-year outcomes of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM HR) when performed at designing and independent centres, and make recommendations for the future use of MoM HR.
METHODS: Studies reporting ten to 15-year outcomes for modern MoM HR devices from both designing and independent centres were reviewed. Outcomes from these studies were assessed to allow the formulation of recommendations for the future use of MoM HR.
RESULTS: Two MoM HR designs, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) and Conserve Plus, have outcomes reported at a minimum of ten years. The BHR was the only device with outcomes reported at a minimum of ten years by both designing (overall survival of up to 95.8 % at 15 years) and independent surgeons (overall survival of 87.1-94.5 % at ten years). Implant survival in these seven BHR studies was influenced by the pre-operative diagnosis (primary osteoarthritis had better outcomes), gender (male patients had better outcomes), and femoral component head size (larger sizes had better outcomes). In contrast to independent centres, designing surgeons reported acceptable outcomes in female patients undergoing BHR.
CONCLUSIONS: There remains a role for MoM HR in young active male patients with primary osteoarthritis, provided the surgeon has sufficient experience in the procedure, the implant has an established record, and the patient is aware of the potential risks associated with MoM bearings and HR. Very experienced HR surgeons may also consider this procedure in females provided they meet the refined inclusion criteria described (including femoral head sizes of 46 mm and above).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hip resurfacing; Indications; Metal-on-metal; Outcomes; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25708400     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2692-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  61 in total

Review 1.  The influence of the size of the component on the outcome of resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a review of the literature.

Authors:  A J Shimmin; W L Walter; C Esposito
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-04

2.  The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series.

Authors:  R T Steffen; H P Pandit; J Palan; D J Beard; R Gundle; P McLardy-Smith; D W Murray; H S Gill
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-04

3.  Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear.

Authors:  D J Langton; T J Joyce; S S Jameson; J Lord; M Van Orsouw; J P Holland; A V F Nargol; K A De Smet
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-02

4.  Femoral neck fracture after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: prevalence, time to fracture, and outcome after revision.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Callum W McBryde; Matthew P Revell; Paul B Pynsent
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing at ten years: role of routine whole blood metal ion measurements in screening for pseudotumours.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Timo Puolakka; Petra Elo; Jorma Pajamäki; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series.

Authors:  J Daniel; C Pradhan; H Ziaee; P B Pynsent; D J W McMinn
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years. An independent prospective review of the first 230 hips.

Authors:  C B Hing; D L Back; M Bailey; D A Young; R E Dalziel; A J Shimmin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-11

8.  Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings.

Authors:  H Pandit; S Glyn-Jones; P McLardy-Smith; R Gundle; D Whitwell; C L M Gibbons; S Ostlere; N Athanasou; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-07

9.  Is second generation metal-on-metal primary total hip arthroplasty with a 28 mm head a worthy option?: a 12- to 18-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Kyu-Tae Hwang; Young-Ho Kim; Yee-Suk Kim; Il-Yong Choi
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study.

Authors:  D J W McMinn; K I E Snell; J Daniel; R B C Treacy; P B Pynsent; R D Riley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-06-14
View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Hip Osteoarthritis: A Primer.

Authors:  Michelle J Lespasio; Assem A Sultan; Nicolas S Piuzzi; Anton Khlopas; M Elaine Husni; George F Muschler; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2018

Review 2.  Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: risk factors for pseudotumours and clinical systematic evaluation.

Authors:  Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  The Role of Metal-on-Metal Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing: Review Article.

Authors:  David Sands; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2016-08-25

4.  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

5.  Clinical significance of corrosion of cemented femoral stems in metal-on-metal hips: a retrieval study.

Authors:  Harry S Hothi; Reshid Berber; Andreas C Panagiotopoulos; Robert K Whittaker; Camilla Rhead; John A Skinner; Alister J Hart
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 6.  Sequelae of large-head metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: Current status and future prospects.

Authors:  Christiaan P van Lingen; Luigi M Zagra; Harmen B Ettema; Cees C Verheyen
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2017-03-13

7.  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

Review 8.  Hip Osteoarthritis: Etiopathogenesis and Implications for Management.

Authors:  Nicholas J Murphy; Jillian P Eyles; David J Hunter
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 3.845

9.  Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris? an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

Authors:  G S Matharu; A Judge; H G Pandit; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.082

10.  Gait after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: an age-matched controlled prospective study.

Authors:  Anatole V Wiik; Rhiannon Lambkin; Justin P Cobb
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 5.082

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.