scholarly journals A comparison of leg length and femoral offset discrepancies in hip resurfacing, large head metal-on- metal and conventional total hip replacement: a case series

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie A Herman ◽  
Alan J Highcock ◽  
John D Moorehead ◽  
Simon J Scott
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Leg Length ◽  
Femoral Offset ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Large Head ◽  
Metal On Metal

Radiographic Assessment of Biomechanical Parameters following hip Resurfacing and Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curtis Robb ◽  
Richard Harris ◽  
Kevin O'dwyer ◽  
Nadim Aslam
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Leg Length ◽  
Femoral Offset ◽  
Normal Side ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Joint Reaction Forces

Resurfacing hip arthroplasty and total hip replacement both aim to restore anatomical parameters. Leg length and offset discrepancy can result in altered joint reaction forces, and are associated with increased wear, dislocation, and decreased patient satisfaction. This study assesses the accuracy of leg length and offset restoration after either a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) or a cemented total hip replacement (THR). Standardised antero-posterior radiography was performed on two groups of 30 patients with unilateral primary osteoarthritis undergoing either a cemented total hip or resurfacing. The normal contra-lateral hip was used as the control. Leg length and offset were measured pre-operatively with no significant difference between the two groups. Cup offset, femoral offset, total offset and leg length of the prosthesis and normal side were measured by two observers and mean measurements were analysed by a paired t test. Leg lengths in each group did not differ significantly from the normal side, THR 0.53 mm (95% CI -2.4 to 3.4 mm) but BHR implantation did result in mean leg shortening of -1.9 mm (95% CI -4.5 mm to 0.6 mm). Cup offset differed significantly from normal anatomy in both groups, as did femoral and total offset for the total hip replacement group. However, femoral offset was restored in the Birmingham resurfacing group. When the THR group was compared against the BHR group we found no difference between restoration of leg lengths (p = 0.21) and cup offset (p = 0.30) but femoral (p = 0.0063) and total offset (p = 0.03) were restored more accurately with a BHR.

Hip Resurfacing Compared with 28-mm Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Replacement

2020 ◽  
Vol 102 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 80-90
Author(s):  
Pascal-André Vendittoli ◽  
Maged Shahin ◽  
Charles Rivière ◽  
Alain Guy Roy ◽  
Janie Barry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with 28-mm diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacement

2013 ◽  
Vol 95-B (11) ◽  
pp. 1464-1473 ◽  
Author(s):  
P-A. Vendittoli ◽  
C. Rivière ◽  
A. G. Roy ◽  
J. Barry ◽  
D. Lusignan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

scholarly journals Cost-Utility of Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Compared to Conventional Total Hip Replacement in Young Active Patients with Osteoarthritis

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 942-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanne Heintzbergen ◽  
Nathalie A. Kulin ◽  
Maarten J. IJzerman ◽  
Lotte M.G. Steuten ◽  
Jason Werle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Active Patients

Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement

2010 ◽  
Vol 92-B (1) ◽  
pp. 38-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Langton ◽  
S. S. Jameson ◽  
T. J. Joyce ◽  
N. J. Hallab ◽  
S. Natu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Early Failure ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

Mortality rates at 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with total hip replacement in England

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian R Kendal ◽  
Daniel Prieto-Alhambra ◽  
Nigel K Arden ◽  
Andrew Carr ◽  
Andrew Judge
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

scholarly journals The hidden costs of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: the financial and logistical implications of a change in hospital follow-up policy

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-91
Author(s):  
J Lloyd ◽  
I Starks ◽  
T Wainwright ◽  
R Middleton
Keyword(s):  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Surface Wear ◽  
Bearing Surface ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Total Hip Replacements ◽  
Large Head ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Hip Replacements

Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacings (HRs) and large head total hip replacements (LHTHRs) were perceived by many as a surgical revolution, with clear advantages over the traditional metal-on-polyethylene total hip replacement (THR). This is especially the case for younger, active individuals in whom conventional THR has been associated with higher rates of aseptic loosening. In addition to less bearing surface wear, frequently cited advantages for HR include the preservation of femoral bone stock, lower dislocation rates, and superior function and activity scores.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document