OBJECTIVE: To provide physicians with a current consensus on total hip replacement. PARTICIPANTS: A non-Federal, nonadvocate, 13-member consensus panel representing the fields of orthopedic surgery, rehabilitation and physical medicine, biomechanics and biomaterials, internal medicine, public health, geriatrics and biostatistics, and a public representative. In addition, 27 experts in orthopedic surgery, rehabilitation and physical medicine, biomechanics and biomaterials, rheumatology, geriatrics, and epidemiology presented data to the consensus panel and a conference audience of 425. EVIDENCE: The literature was search through Medline and an extensive bibliography of references was provided to the panel and the conference audience. Experts prepared abstracts with relevant citations from the literature. Scientific evidence was given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience. CONSENSUS: The panel, answering predefined consensus questions, developed their conclusions based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: The panel composed a draft statement that was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. Thereafter, the panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The panel finalized the revisions within a few weeks after the conference. CONCLUSIONS: Total hip replacement is an option for nearly all patients with diseases of the hip that cause chronic discomfort and significant functional impairment. Most patients have an excellent prognosis for long-term improvement in symptoms and physical function. At this time, a cemented femoral component using modern cementing techniques, paired with a porous-coated acetabular component, can give excellent long-term results. Revision of a total hip replacement is indicated when mechanical failure occurs. Continued periodic follow-up is necessary to identify early evidence of impending failure so as to permit remedial action before a catastrophic event.
OBJECTIVE: To provide physicians with a current consensus on total hip replacement. PARTICIPANTS: A non-Federal, nonadvocate, 13-member consensus panel representing the fields of orthopedic surgery, rehabilitation and physical medicine, biomechanics and biomaterials, internal medicine, public health, geriatrics and biostatistics, and a public representative. In addition, 27 experts in orthopedic surgery, rehabilitation and physical medicine, biomechanics and biomaterials, rheumatology, geriatrics, and epidemiology presented data to the consensus panel and a conference audience of 425. EVIDENCE: The literature was search through Medline and an extensive bibliography of references was provided to the panel and the conference audience. Experts prepared abstracts with relevant citations from the literature. Scientific evidence was given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience. CONSENSUS: The panel, answering predefined consensus questions, developed their conclusions based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: The panel composed a draft statement that was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. Thereafter, the panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The panel finalized the revisions within a few weeks after the conference. CONCLUSIONS: Total hip replacement is an option for nearly all patients with diseases of the hip that cause chronic discomfort and significant functional impairment. Most patients have an excellent prognosis for long-term improvement in symptoms and physical function. At this time, a cemented femoral component using modern cementing techniques, paired with a porous-coated acetabular component, can give excellent long-term results. Revision of a total hip replacement is indicated when mechanical failure occurs. Continued periodic follow-up is necessary to identify early evidence of impending failure so as to permit remedial action before a catastrophic event.
Authors: Charles L Nelson; Robert B Jones; Nathaniel C Wingert; Michael Foltzer; Thomas R Bowen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Massimo Innocenti; Lorenzo Nistri; Marco Biondi; Armando Del Prete; Marco Giorgini; Armando Macera; Stefano Soderi Journal: Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab Date: 2013-01