Literature DB >> 28167874

Design Considerations for the Next Generation Hip Resurfacing Implant: Commentary.

Edwin P Su1,2.   

Abstract

The current generation of hip resurfacing consists of a metal-on-metal ball and monoblock socket of minimal thickness. Although results in certain patient subgroups have been excellent at up to 15 years of follow-up, other subgroups have had poor results. The hard-on-hard bearing is susceptible to edge-loading conditions and may produce excessive metallic debris; furthermore, other patients have had allergic reactions to the metal byproducts. In both situations, there can be clinical failures from adverse local tissue reactions. As such, the role of hip resurfacing has diminished over the last decade because of these issues. Developing the next generation hip resurfacing is essential to address these problems, and there are multiple design considerations in doing so. The choice of materials will be of prime concern, with the decision to use a hard-on-soft or hard-on-hard articulation. The dimensions of the resurfacing implant also pose a challenge, because of the requirement to preserve the bone. Fixation of the implant is another area of interest, in order to maximize implant longevity.

Entities:  

Keywords:  alternative bearings; hip arthroplasty; hip resurfacing; implant design

Year:  2016        PMID: 28167874      PMCID: PMC5264583          DOI: 10.1007/s11420-016-9536-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HSS J        ISSN: 1556-3316


  30 in total

Review 1.  History and modern concepts in surface replacement.

Authors:  D McMinn; J Daniel
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.617

2.  Wear and Osteolysis of Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene at 10 to 14 Years: The Effect of Femoral Head Size.

Authors:  Paul F Lachiewicz; Elizabeth S Soileau; John M Martell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components.

Authors:  R De Haan; P A Campbell; E P Su; K A De Smet
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-09

4.  High stress conditions do not increase wear of thin highly crosslinked UHMWPE.

Authors:  Natalie H Kelly; Amar D Rajadhyaksha; Timothy M Wright; Suzanne A Maher; Geoffrey H Westrich
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  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

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.  Early results and complications of surface replacement of the hip.

Authors:  M N Jolley; E A Salvati; G C Brown
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Risk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing.

Authors:  S Glyn-Jones; H Pandit; Y-M Kwon; H Doll; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-12

9.  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

10.  Hip resurfacing: a 40-year perspective.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-09-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.