Navigation and the Square Angle Pointer in Hip Resurfacing

2013 ◽  
pp. 141-149
Author(s):  
N. Szöke
Keyword(s):  
Hip Resurfacing

The hip resurfacing handbook

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen De Smet ◽  
Pat Campbell ◽  
Catherine van der Straeten
Keyword(s):  
Hip Resurfacing

scholarly journals Return to Sport After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110035
Author(s):  
Kyle W. Morse ◽  
Ajay Premkumar ◽  
Andrew Zhu ◽  
Rachelle Morgenstern ◽  
Edwin P. Su
Keyword(s):  
Case Series ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Professional Athletes ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Elite Level ◽  
Performance Statistics ◽  
And Performance ◽  
End Stage

Background: Femoroacetabular impingement and degenerative hip osteoarthritis (OA) affect athletes across a wide variety of sports. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) has emerged as a surgical treatment for active individuals with end-stage hip OA to provide pain relief and allow return to high-impact activities. Return to professional sports after HRA has not been well characterized. Purpose/Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to report on a series of elite athletes in a variety of sports who underwent HRA. We hypothesized that professional and elite-level athletes would be able to return to sports after HRA for end-stage hip OA. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted on professional athletes who underwent HRA at a single institution between 2007 and 2017. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon using the posterolateral approach. Athletes’ return to play and sport-specific performance statistics were obtained using self-reported and publicly available data sources. Athletes were matched to an age- and performance-based cohort to determine changes in performance-based metrics. Results: Eight professional athletes were identified, including 2 baseball pitchers, 1 ice hockey defenseman, 1 foil fencer, 1 men’s doubles tennis player, 1 basketball player, 1 ultramarathoner, and 1 Ironman triathlete. All 8 patients returned to sports; 6 of 8 (75%) patients were able to return for at least 1 full season at a professional level after surgery. There were no significant differences between performance statistics for athletes who returned to play and their preoperative performance measures for the years leading up to surgery or the age- and performance-matched cohort. Conclusion: HRA remains a surgical alternative for end-stage hip OA in young, high-impact, active patients. While the primary goals of surgery are pain control and quality of life improvement, it is possible to return to elite-level sporting activity after HRA.

scholarly journals Trends and developments in hip and knee arthroplasty technology

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 205566832095204
Author(s):  
Martin Marsh ◽  
Simon Newman
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Dual Mobility ◽  
Joint Replacements ◽  
Robotic Assisted Surgery ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Stems ◽  
Hip And Knee Surgery

The developments in hip and knee arthroplasty over recent years have aimed to improve outcomes, reduce complications and improve implant survival. This review describes some of the most interesting trends and developments in this important and fast-moving field. Notable developments have included ceramic hip resurfacing, mini hip stems, cementless knee replacement and the wider adoption of the dual mobility articulation for hip arthroplasty. Advances in additive manufacturing and the surface modification of joint replacements offer increasing options for more challenging arthroplasty cases. Robotic assisted surgery is one of the most interesting developments in hip and knee surgery. The recent growth in the use of this technology is providing data that will help determine whether this approach should become the standard of care for hip and knee arthroplasty in the future.

A comparison of 2 cementing techniques in hip resurfacing using human femoral heads

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002199706
Author(s):  
Sarah J Shiels ◽  
Martin Williams ◽  
Gordon C Bannister ◽  
Richard P Baker
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Femoral Component ◽  
Bubble Formation ◽  
Young Male ◽  
Cement Mantle ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Air Bubble ◽  
Low Viscosity ◽  
Femoral Heads ◽  
Group 2

Introduction: Hip resurfacing remains a valid option in young male patients. The creation of the optimum cement mantle aids fixation of the femoral component. If the cement mantle is too thick the prosthesis can remain proud leading to early failure or if it penetrates too far into the femoral head, it may cause osteonecrosis. Method: 18 of 96 femoral heads collected from patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty were matched for their surface porosity. They were randomly allocated into 2 different cementing groups. Group 1 had the traditional bolus of cement technique, while group 2 had a modified cementing technique (swirl) where the inside of the femoral component was lined with an even layer of low viscosity cement. Results: The traditional bolus technique had significantly greater cement mantle thickness in 3 of 4 zones of penetration ( p = 0.002), greater and larger air bubble formation (6 of 9 in bolus technique vs. 1 in 9 in swirl technique, p = 0.05) and more incomplete cement mantles compared with the swirl technique. There was no relationship to femoral head porosity. Conclusion: The swirl technique should be used to cement the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Long-term clinical studies would conform if this translates into increased survivorship of the femoral component.

scholarly journals Femoral Mechanical Response in Golfers with Total Hip or Hip Resurfacing Implants

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 37-41
Author(s):  
Cameron Coates ◽  
Javier Sanchez
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Response ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Total Hip

Chinese Experience With Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 968-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hein Latt Win ◽  
Shuhua Yang ◽  
Hiran K. Wimalaratne ◽  
Xu Weihua ◽  
Ye Shunan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Metal On Metal

Comparative repeatability of guide-pin axis positioning in computer-assisted and manual femoral head resurfacing arthroplasty

2007 ◽  
Vol 221 (7) ◽  
pp. 713-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Hodgson ◽  
N Helmy ◽  
B A Masri ◽  
N V Greidanus ◽  
K B Inkpen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Computer Assisted Surgery ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Comparable Amount ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Surgeon Experience ◽  
Position And Orientation ◽  
Version Measurement

The orientation of the femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty affects the likelihood of loosening and fracture. Computer-assisted surgery has been shown to improve significantly the surgeon's ability to achieve a desired position and orientation; nevertheless, both bias and variability in positioning remain and can potentially be improved. The authors recently developed a computer-assisted surgical (CAS) technique to guide the placement of the pin used in femoral head resurfacing arthroplasty and showed that it produced significantly less variation than a typical manual technique in varus/valgus placement relative to a pre-operatively determined surgical plan while taking a comparable amount of time. In the present study, the repeatability of both the CAS and manual techniques is evaluated in order to estimate the relative contributions to overall variability of surgical technique (CAS versus manual), surgeon experience (novice versus experienced), and other sources of variability (e.g. across specimens and across surgeons). This will enable further improvements in the accuracy of CAS techniques. Three residents/fellows new to femoral head resurfacing and three experienced hip arthroplasty surgeons performed 20-30 repetitions of each of the CAS and manual techniques on at least one of four cadaveric femur specimens. The CAS system had markedly better repeatability (1.2°) in varus/valgus placement relative to the manual technique (2.8°), slightly worse repeatability in version (4.4° versus 3.2°), markedly better repeatability in mid-neck placement (0.7 mm versus 2.5 mm), no significant dependence on surgeon skill level (in contrast to the manual technique), and took significantly less time (50 s versus 123 s). Proposed improvements to the version measurement process showed potential for reducing the standard deviation by almost two thirds. This study supports the use of CAS for femoral head resurfacing as it is quicker than the manual technique, independent of surgeon experience, and demonstrates improved repeatability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document