Our Midterm Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing With and Without Navigation

Hachmi, Mohamed El; Penasse, M.

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.09.014

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did observe an overall improvement of patients’ functioning over time, but this was similar for the two treatment groups. All results are consistent with previous studies [9, 19, 37].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

No added value for Computer-Assisted surgery to improve femoral component positioning and Patient Reported Outcomes in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty; a multi-center randomized controlled trial

Koper

Reijman

et al. 2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundComputer Assisted Surgery (CAS) has proven to improve the accuracy in several orthopedic procedures. Therefore we used this technique to evaluate femoral component positioning in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty (HRA). The aim of this study was to evaluate imageless CAS compared to manually implanted femoral components and subsequently evaluates Patient Related Outcome Measures (PROMs). We hypothesized that the use of CAS optimizes the position of the femoral component and improves PROMs.MethodsThis is a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of two groups. In the CAS group guiding of the femoral component was done with imageless navigation. In the Conventional (control) group the femoral component was placed manually according to the preplanned position. The primary outcome measure consists of a maximum of 3 degrees difference between the postoperative Stem Shaft Angle (SSA) and preplanned SSA. Secondary outcome measures consist of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale (HOOS), the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score.ResultsA total of 122 patients were randomized, 61 in the CAS group and 61 in the conventional group. There was no significant differences in accuracy of femoral implant position. The mean difference between the postoperative- and preplanned SSA was − 2.26 and − 1.75 degrees (more varus) respectively in the CAS and Conventional group. After surgery both groups show significant improvement in all PROMs compared to the baseline measurements, with no significant differences between the groups.ConclusionOur cohort indicates no benefit for the use of CAS in accuracy of placement of the femoral component in HRA compared to manual implantation. There are no clinical differences in PROMs after 1 year follow up. This study showed no added value and no justification for the use of CAS in femoral component positioning in HRA.Trial registrationThis trial is registered at ClinicalTrails.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) on the 25th of October 2006: NCT00391937.Level of incidenceLevel IIb, multicenter randomized controlled trial.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Fewer femoral components were positioned in ≥5 degrees absolute deviation compared to preplanning in the CAS group [19]. In another, retrospective study, they showed a more accurate placement of the femoral component and less deviations from the planned SSA was accomplished with the use of CAS [37].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No added value for Computer-Assisted surgery to improve femoral component positioning and Patient Reported Outcomes in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty; a multi-center randomized controlled trial

Koper

Reijman

et al. 2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 The utilization of computer-assisted navigation during resurfacing procedures has largely focused on the positioning of the femoral component. 6–8,11,13 In the present report, the accuracy of a navigation tool for acetabular measurements (anteversion and inclination) and leg length during BHR was evaluated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, a growing body of literature shows promising results for the use of computer-assisted navigation in both THA 4 and hip resurfacing procedures. 5–12 While resurfacing studies have largely evaluated the accuracy of computer-assisted navigation for femoral component placement, 6–8,11,13 the accuracy of computer-assisted navigation associated with acetabular component positioning is less characterized. 10,12 The present report summarizes the use of an emerging, imageless navigation tool in a case of BHR, where navigation accurately measured the acetabular component position intraoperatively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-assisted navigation in Birmingham hip resurfacing: A case report

Shah

Benson

Muir

2018

SAGE Open Medical Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Component malpositioning during Birmingham hip resurfacing increases the risk for component wear, metallosis, component loosening, and the likelihood of dislocation and revision surgery. Computer-assisted navigation can increase the accuracy to which components are placed, and the utilization of this technology in Birmingham hip resurfacing is increasing. The present report summarizes the accuracy of acetabular component positioning in a Birmingham hip resurfacing case utilizing navigation. Intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopy following the use of the navigation tool confirmed excellent seating, positioning, and stability of the acetabular component. In addition, post-operative antero-posterior radiographs confirmed device accuracy and revealed a stable joint with no evidence of acetabular loosening or femoral fracture. Computer-assisted navigation may therefore be an effective tool to improve the accuracy of component positioning during Birmingham hip resurfacing.

show abstract

“…In order to improve surface bioactivity of titanium substrates, numerous methods have been proposed to cover it with bio-ceramic coatings [ 1 ]. Various clinical studies demonstrated that the hydroxyapatite coating of prosthesis can promote earlier osseous response which could increase the prosthesis fixation and the bonding strength [ 3 – 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electro-chemical deposition of nano hydroxyapatite-zinc coating on titanium metal substrate

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTitanium is an inert metal that does not induce osteogenesis and has no antibacterial properties; it is proposed that hydroxyapatite coating can enhance its bioactivity, while zinc can contribute to antibacterial properties and improve osseointegration.AimsA nano-sized hydroxyapatite-zinc coating was deposited on commercially pure titanium using an electro-chemical process, in order to increase its surface roughness and enhance adhesion properties.MethodsThe hydroxyapatite-zinc coating was attained using an electro-chemical deposition in a solution composed of a naturally derived calcium carbonate, di-ammonium hydrogen phosphate, with a pure zinc metal as the anode and titanium as the cathode. The applied voltage was −2.5 for 2 h at a temperature of 85 °C. The resultant coating was characterized for its surface morphology and chemical composition using a scanning electron microscope (SEM), energy dispersive x-ray spectroscope (EDS), and Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectrometer. The coated specimens were also evaluated for their surface roughness and adhesion quality.ResultsHydroxyapatite-zinc coating had shown rosette-shaped, homogenous structure with nano-size distribution, as confirmed by SEM analysis. FT-IR and EDS proved that coatings are composed of hydroxyapatite (HA) and zinc. The surface roughness assessment revealed that the coating procedure had significantly increased average roughness (Ra) than the control, while the adhesive tape test demonstrated a high-quality adhesive coat with no laceration on tape removal.ConclusionsThe developed in vitro electro-chemical method can be employed for the deposition of an even thickness of nano HA-Zn adhered coatings on titanium substrate and increases its surface roughness significantly.

show abstract

Our Midterm Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing With and Without Navigation

Cited by 8 publications

References 27 publications

No added value for Computer-Assisted surgery to improve femoral component positioning and Patient Reported Outcomes in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty; a multi-center randomized controlled trial

No added value for Computer-Assisted surgery to improve femoral component positioning and Patient Reported Outcomes in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty; a multi-center randomized controlled trial

Computer-assisted navigation in Birmingham hip resurfacing: A case report

Electro-chemical deposition of nano hydroxyapatite-zinc coating on titanium metal substrate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About