Survivorship analysis of the ring hip arthroplasty

Effectiveness of hip prostheses in primary total hip replacement: a critical review of evidence and an economic model.

“…11 Quantification of outcomes 13 8712 Follow-up data compared with preoperative data (preferably mean and range) 8 (53) 13 Independence of investigators (declared or no vested interest) 6 (40) 14 Numbers of men and women given 11 (73) 15 Weight -mean and range 9 (60) 16 Preoperative diagnoses with percentages/ numbers of patients given 13 (87) 17 Clinical evaluation independent of operating surgeon 4 (27) 1 Method of assignment of patients to different prostheses described, and appropriate 17 332 Patients matched or differences evaluated in valid statistical analysis 14 283 Appropriate statistical analysis undertaken 32 644 Number of patients deceased or lost to follow-up reported or included in analysis 29 575 Follow-up period -mean and range 39 766 Prosthesis models specified 46 907 Clearly defined criteria for measuring outcomes 46 908 Age -mean and range 37 (73) Other criteria 9 If retrospective, patients selected without knowledge of outcomes 27 (71) 10 In prospective studies, follow-up assessments blind to prosthesis type, if possible 2 (15) 11 Results given for specific models (and sizes) 38 (75) 12 Quantification of outcome criteria 41 (80) 13 Follow-up data compared to preoperative data (mean and range) 10 2014 Independence of investigators (declared or no vested interest) 12 (24) 15 Numbers of men and women given 41 (80) 16 Weight -mean and range 14 (27) 17 Preoperative diagnoses with percentages/ numbers of patients given 34 (67) 18 Clinical evaluation independent of operating surgeon 4 (10) 19 Radiological evaluation independent and blinded to clinical results 3 (6) Method of assignment of patients to different prostheses described and appropriate 6 (67) Patients matched or differences evaluated in valid statistical analysis 7 (78) Appropriate statistical analysis undertaken 8 (80) Number of patients deceased or lost to follow-up reported or included in analysis 9 90Follow-up period -mean and range 7…”

Migration of Metal-on-Metal Versus Ceramic-on-Polyethylene Hip Prostheses

“…4,7,12,17,18,23,30 Metal-on-metal prostheses also are reported to have excellent results, 3,5,13,24,29 although some authors have experienced poor performance. 9,19,27 Frictional torque and wear differ between cups with polyethylene inlays (low friction and high wear) and prostheses without polyethylene, like metal-on-metal bearings (higher frictional torque and negligible wear).…”

“…Several authors reported that metal-on-metal bearings may have excellent long-term survival rates 3,5,13,24,29 which can be compared with rates of low friction arthroplasties. 4,7,12,17,18,23,30 Other authors found inferior results of metalon-metal prostheses.…”

Large‐diameter metal‐on‐metal total hip arthroplasties: A page in orthopedic history?

“…Metal‐on‐metal (MoM) bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been used in the 1960s, the classic prototypes being the McKee Farrar and Ring implants . The success of the Charnley hip in the 1970s drew orthopedic surgeons' attention away from MoM bearing surfaces, but only temporarily.…”

“…Metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been used in the 1960s, the classic prototypes being the McKee Farrar and Ring implants. [1][2][3] The success of the Charnley hip 4,5 in the 1970s drew orthopedic surgeons' attention away from MoM bearing surfaces, but only temporarily. Large numbers of metal-on-polyethylene hips were implanted at that time and the phenomenon of ''polyethylene disease,'' or osteolysis secondary to polyethylene wear debris subsequently emerged.…”