Long-term results of Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in young patients

Joshi, Atul; Porter, Martyn; Trail, I. A.; Hunt, Linda; Murphy, Jimmy; Hardinge, K.

doi:10.1302/0301-620x.75b4.8331119

Cited by 224 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results from an independent single-surgeon series are similar to other published studies (Table 3). The results presented here compare well with those of THA, particularly in the younger population [7,15,24,28,34], although the etiology, the indications and patient demographic data may be different between patients in hip resurfacing arthroplasty and those in THA. There is also a potential advantage of conservation of proximal femoral bone when compared with THA, although further comparative studies are required to elucidate the benefits.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…Over the last decade, hip resurfacing has become an increasingly common option, predominantly for younger patients with greater physical demand particularly because the revision rates of conventional THA in younger patients are generally higher, ranging from 12% to 67% at 4.5 to 16.2 years [7,15,24,28,34]. However, Marker et al [35] reported similar functional hip scores and radiographic assessment in a recent review of the literature comparing hip resurfacing with THA, although a number of studies included in the review did show better clinical outcomes after hip resurfacing [35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What is the Midterm Survivorship and Function After Hip Resurfacing?

Rahman¹,

Muirhead-Allwood²,

Alkinj³

2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is a common procedure that improves functional scores and has a reported survivorship between 95% and 98% at 5 years. However, most studies are reported from the pioneering rather than independent centers or have relatively small patient numbers or less than five years followup. Various factors have been implicated in early failure. Questions/purposes Our purposes were to determine: (1) the midterm survival of the BHR; (2) the function in patients treated with hip resurfacing; and (3) whether age, gender, BMI, or size of components related to failure. Methods We reviewed the first 302 patients (329 hips) on whom we performed resurfacing arthroplasty. We assessed the survivorship, change in functional hip scores (HHS, OHS, WOMAC, UCLA), and analyzed potential risk factors (age, gender, BMI, component size) for failure. The mean age at the time of surgery was 56.0 years (range, 28.2-75.5 years). The minimum followup was 5 years (mean, 6.6 years; range, 5-9.2 years).Results Kaplan-Meier analysis showed survival of 96.5% (95% CI, 94.7-98.4) at 9 years taking revision

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Midterm Survivorship and Function After Hip Resurfacing?

Rahman¹,

Muirhead-Allwood²,

Alkinj³

2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The high rates of early loosening and failures observed in younger, active patients coupled with concerns regarding "cement disease" continued to drive a renewed interest in uncemented fixation [20][21][22] . Early failures of cemented implants in these younger patients were often associated with a varus positioning of the femoral stem whereas the acetabular component often failed after 12 years with polyethylene wear and loosening.…”

Section: Total Hip Replacementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented stems in primary total hip replacement

Wyatt

Hooper

Frampton

et al. 2014

WJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Total hip replacement (THR) is a successful and reliable operation for both relieving pain and improving function in patients who are disabled with end stage arthritis. The ageing population is predicted to significantly increase the requirement for THR in patients who have a higher functional demand than those of the past. Uncemented THR was introduced to improve the long term results and in particular the results in younger, higher functioning patients. There has been controversy about the value of uncemented compared to cemented THR although there has been a world-wide trend towards uncemented fixation. Uncemented acetabular fixation has gained wide acceptance, as seen in the increasing number of hybrid THR in joint registries, but there remains debate about the best mode of femoral fixation. In this article we review the history and current worldwide registry data, with an in-depth analysis of the New Zealand Joint Registry, to determine the results of uncemented femoral fixation in an attempt to provide an evidence-based answer as to the value of this form of fixation.

show abstract

“…Several iterations had been used during the 1950s through the 1980s with high early failure rates, leaving total hip arthroplasty (THA) as the only arthroplasty option for both old and young patients. Young patients with higher activity levels experienced early failures with THA [2], even though their longer life expectancy required that they last longer. Exploration of other conservative solutions which could potentially delay the need for an eventual THA continued.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indications and results of hip resurfacing

McMinn

Daniel

Ziaee

et al. 2010

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The best indication for hip resurfacing is a young active patient with severe hip arthritis, good hip morphology and reasonable bone quality. With revision of either component for any reason as the endpoint, there were 68 revisions in our series of 3,095 consecutive Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHR) (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009), including all diagnoses in all ages. This equates to a revision rate of 2.2% and survivorships of 99, 97 and 96% at five, ten and 13 years, respectively. In patients under 55 years with osteoarthritis, the survivorship is 99 and 98% at ten and 13 years. These results provide medium-term evidence that BHR when performed well in properly selected patients offers excellent outcomes and implant survivorship. Small changes to implant materials and design can affect joint function and survivorship significantly as seen from the withdrawal of certain resurfacing devices recently from clinical use. The clinical history of one device cannot be extrapolated to other devices.

show abstract

Long-term results of Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in young patients

Cited by 224 publications

References 0 publications

What is the Midterm Survivorship and Function After Hip Resurfacing?

What is the Midterm Survivorship and Function After Hip Resurfacing?

Survival outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented stems in primary total hip replacement

Indications and results of hip resurfacing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About