Patient Selection for Resurfacing Hip Arthroplasty

Mortazavi, Seyed Mohammad Javad; Fertala, Kasia; Restrepo, Camilo; Parmar, Raviinder; Hozack, William J.

doi:10.1097/bto.0b013e3181d1e7a4

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The description of these complications has made it possible to identify several points in resurfacing: indications, necessary experience of the surgeon, surgical technique, and rehabilitation [18,38], yet the conference consensus 2009 [14] omits two challenges: the manufacturing of the implants and their geometry.…”

Section: Metal-on-metal: Episodementioning

confidence: 99%

Metal-on-metal: history, state of the art (2010)

Triclot

2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The history of metal-on-metal bearing began with K. Mc Kee. Several "episodes" have marked the history of metal-on-metal articulations, and each has contributed to a better understanding of this type of tribology. But to date the indications for this bearing are debated and are subject to reservations because of the existence of permanently elevated levels of circulating metal ions. It therefore appears that the monitoring of our patients, the documentation of our revisions and the collaboration with our industry partners as well as communicating with our biology and pathology colleagues is necessary to help us solve these problems.Metal-on-metal: history, state-of the-art (2010) Typically, the first total hip implant with a metal-on-metal articulation is attributed to P. Wiles who, in 1938, implanted a couple made of steel [53]-but this was prehistory!The more recent experience starts with McKee whose name will always remain associated with first generation metal-on-metal. However, a high number of failures discredited this metal-on-metal articulation; even more so, because the good tolerance of polyethylene underlined the qualities of the metal-on-polyethylene articulation advocated by J. Charnley who would also became the gravedigger of this first generation.An elaborate analysis of the failures led Weber to initiate and then promote a second generation of metal-on-metal, cemented at first, then rapidly followed by non-cemented prostheses.In 1996, a special edition of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research was dedicated to this bearing. Its particular complication, ALVAL, would be documented by Willert.The tribology of metal-on-metal, thus better known, reopened the door to bipolar resurfacing, and the complicated treatment of fractured necks led to the development of conventional total hip prostheses with a large diameter head.It is this evolution towards a large diameter that gave reason to reconsider the consequences of excessive wear of metal-on-metal articulations. The adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) also deserves to be analyzed! Eventually, because of these never resolved uncertainties, which are still a topic due to the high potential risk related to the permanently circulating metal ions, the metalon-metal bearing appears to be the "bad boy" among the joint bearing made available to surgeons today.Thus, several "episodes" have marked the history of metal-on-metal articulations, and each has contributed to a better understanding of this type of tribology.Metal-on-metal: episode 1 While G.K. McKee stands for metal-on-metal coupling, also K.M. Sivash, P. Ring, J. Scales, A. Hugler, M. Müller and M. Postel deserve mention. They have all participated in the development of this bearing surface and have honestly faced up to the limits and the failures of their work [40].McKee had to rapidly give up steel for a chrome-cobaltmolybdenum alloy promoted by Venable, and the acetab-P. Triclot

show abstract

Section: Metal-on-metal: Episodementioning

confidence: 99%

Metal-on-metal: history, state of the art (2010)

Triclot

2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Eligibility for the Hip-Resurfacing Arthroplasty Procedure: An Evaluation on 592 Hips

Queiroz¹,

Faria²,

Duarte³

et al. 2012

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the percentage of ideal patients who would be eligible for hip-resurfacing surgery at a reference service for hip arthroplasty. Methods: Out of all the cases of hip arthroplasty operated at Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual de São Paulo (HSPE) between January 2009 and December 2010, we assessed a total of 592 procedures that would fit the criteria for indication for resurfacing arthroplasty, after clinical and radiological evaluation according to the criteria established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by Seyler et al. Results: Among the total number of hip replacement arthroplasty cases, 5.74% of the patients were eligible. Among the patients who underwent primary arthroplasty, we found that 8.23% presented ideal conditions for this procedure. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that this type of surgery still has a limited role among hip surgery methods.

show abstract

Patient Selection for Resurfacing Hip Arthroplasty

Cited by 2 publications

References 44 publications

Metal-on-metal: history, state of the art (2010)

Metal-on-metal: history, state of the art (2010)

Eligibility for the Hip-Resurfacing Arthroplasty Procedure: An Evaluation on 592 Hips

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About