2012
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.94b3.28362
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Current controversies in hip surgery

Abstract: An international faculty of orthopaedic surgeons presented their work on the current challenges in hip surgery at the London Hip Meeting which was attended by over 400 delegates. The topics covered included femoroacetabular impingement, thromboembolic phenomena associated with hip surgery, bearing surfaces (including metal-on-metal articulations), outcomes of hip replacement surgery and revision hip replacement. We present a concise report of the current opinions on hip surgery from this meeting with appropri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In low-wear bearing couples such as metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-ceramic couples, the use of larger femoral heads is preferred due to small contact stresses, which lead to a lower risk of mechanical failure. This experimental finding has not been corroborated by clinical practice with metal-on-metal couples [ 39 ]. Elkins et al [ 40 ] also reported a similar conclusion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…In low-wear bearing couples such as metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-ceramic couples, the use of larger femoral heads is preferred due to small contact stresses, which lead to a lower risk of mechanical failure. This experimental finding has not been corroborated by clinical practice with metal-on-metal couples [ 39 ]. Elkins et al [ 40 ] also reported a similar conclusion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Because of these effects, most notably due to the possibility of unknown complications appearing in the mid‐ and long‐term, a periodic follow‐up has been recommended for all patients bearing a metal‐on‐metal arthroplasty, especially resurfacing models. The ASR resurfacing arthroplasty model has shown a high failure rate in the mid‐term; this led both international agencies and the manufacturer itself to instruct the withdrawal of said product from clinical practice in 2010. It is recommended that patients with this implant are routinely monitored by clinical, analytical, and radiographic assessments, as well as other diagnostic tests such as MRI and CT …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 Because of these effects, most notably due to the possibility of unknown complications appearing in the mid-and long-term, a periodic follow-up has been recommended for all patients bearing a metal-on-metal arthroplasty, 19,20 especially resurfacing models. The ASR resurfacing arthroplasty model has shown a high failure rate in the mid-term 21,22 ; this led both international agencies 23 and the manufacturer itself to instruct the withdrawal of said product from clinical practice in 2010. It is recommended that patients with this implant are routinely monitored by clinical, analytical, and radiographic assessments, as well as other diagnostic tests such as MRI and CT. [24][25][26] Depending on clinical evolution, the presence of pseudo-cysts, and the increase of metal levels in blood and urine, 27 replacement surgery of the arthroplasty including implant removal, pseudo-cyst resection, and the implantation of a conventional arthroplasty is the recommended procedure to follow.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%