Hydroxyapatite-Coated Femoral Implant in Metal-on-Metal Resurfacing Hip Arthroplasty: Minimum of Two Years Follow-Up

Lilikakis, A.; Vowler, Sarah L.; Villar, Richard N.

doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2004.12.003

Cited by 63 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Australian registry, the revision rate for hip resurfacing (excluding infection) was 1.7% at 1 year and 1.2% for conventional THA [7]. In our study, the overall rate of revision (excluding infection) was 0.9%, and these findings compare favorably to the Australian Registry and to other published reports [2,8,18,20,24,25,45].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

The Learning Curve for Adopting Hip Resurfacing Among Hip Specialists

Nunley

Zhu

Brooks

et al. 2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient demand and surgeon interest in hip resurfacing has recently increased, but surgeons in the United States are relatively inexperienced with this procedure. We determined the learning curve associated with hip resurfacing and compared the rate of early complications of the first 650 hip resurfacings between five experienced hip surgeons and a national safety survey database study we previously published, which included 89 surgeons and 537 hip resurfacings. Patient demographics and adverse events were recorded. Specific features on pre-and postoperative radiographs were measured in a blinded fashion by a single observer. There were 13 major complications (2.0%), which is 3.7 times lower than our national safety survey complication rate of 7.4%. All fractures occurred in the first 25 cases performed. The complication rate was higher for the first 25 procedures (5.6%) compared with the second 25 procedures (1

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

The Learning Curve for Adopting Hip Resurfacing Among Hip Specialists

Nunley

Zhu

Brooks

et al. 2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Narrowing of the femoral neck after hip resurfacing has been observed with most current resurfacing designs [14,17] and stress shielding has been cited as a possible cause for this phenomenon. In our study, we did not find any difference in the incidence of femoral neck narrowing between the hips with a cemented stem and the hips with a press-fit stem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cementing the Metaphyseal Stem in Metal-on-Metal Resurfacing: When and Why

Amstutz

Duff

2009

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It has been shown that over the years hip resurfacing, the neck diameter decreases due to mechanically optimized bone remodeling of the femur (Lilikakis et al 2005). A reduced neck diameter could lead to higher ROM.…”

Section: Implant Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purpose Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is being used more and more frequently. The small ratio in size between the resurfaced femoral head and the relatively thick femoral neck raises the question of whether the range of motion is sufficient, particularly with regard to the high mobility required by younger patients. We analyzed motion in a CAD model. Methods Three-dimensional CAD models of the natural hip were created from CT scans and 8 designs of hip resurfacing prostheses (head diameter between 42 mm and 54 mm combined with a hemispherical cup) were implanted in a virtual sense. We simulated 3 different leg positions and the range of motion was evaluated, considering five different implant positions.Results The range of motion of the hip resurfacing designs analyzed was far below the range of motion of stemmed total hip prostheses. None of the resurfacing prostheses provided flexion movements of 90° without impingement. The average range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty was 31-48° below the range of motion of a stemmed total hip replacement with 32-mm head diameter.Interpretation The range of motion of the hip resurfacing designs examined was substantially less than that of a conventional total hip prosthesis. Since impingement of the femoral neck on the acetabular component increases the risk of neck fractures, of dislocation and of subsequent implant loosening, the design and position of the implant should be considered before using hip resurfacing arthroplasty as a standard treatment for younger patients.

show abstract

Hydroxyapatite-Coated Femoral Implant in Metal-on-Metal Resurfacing Hip Arthroplasty: Minimum of Two Years Follow-Up

Cited by 63 publications

References 25 publications

The Learning Curve for Adopting Hip Resurfacing Among Hip Specialists

The Learning Curve for Adopting Hip Resurfacing Among Hip Specialists

Cementing the Metaphyseal Stem in Metal-on-Metal Resurfacing: When and Why

Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About