Serum aluminium and cobalt levels after ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal total hip replacement

2006 ◽  
Vol 88-B (8) ◽  
pp. 1003-1005 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Grübl ◽  
M. Weissinger ◽  
W. Brodner ◽  
A. Gleiss ◽  
A. Giurea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Serum Aluminium ◽  
Ceramic On Ceramic

Differences in ion release after ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal total hip replacement

2006 ◽  
Vol 88-B (4) ◽  
pp. 472-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Savarino ◽  
M. Greco ◽  
E. Cenni ◽  
L. Cavasinni ◽  
R. Rotini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Ion Release ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Ceramic On Ceramic

Comparing Large-Diameter Metal-on-Metal and Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Replacement

2014 ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
Tiago Barbosa ◽  
Frédéric Ramalho ◽  
José Ferreira ◽  
Tiago Basto ◽  
Carlos Vilela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Ceramic On Ceramic

scholarly journals Uncemented versus cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement in patients with femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 030006052110122
Author(s):  
Wenlu Liu ◽  
Huanyi Lin ◽  
Xianshang Zeng ◽  
Meiji Chen ◽  
Weiwei Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of primary metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-TR) converted to uncemented total hip replacement (UTR) or cemented total hip replacement (CTR) in patients with femoral neck fractures (AO/OTA: 31B/C). Methods Patient data of 234 UTR or CTR revisions after primary MoM-TR failure from March 2007 to January 2018 were retrospectively identified. Clinical outcomes, including the Harris hip score (HHS) and key orthopaedic complications, were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months following conversion and every 12 months thereafter. Results The mean follow-up was 84.12 (67–100) months for UTR and 84.23 (66–101) months for CTR. At the last follow-up, the HHS was better in the CTR- than UTR-treated patients. Noteworthy dissimilarities were correspondingly detected in the key orthopaedic complication rates (16.1% for CTR vs. 47.4% for UTR). Statistically significant differences in specific orthopaedic complications were also detected in the re-revision rate (10.3% for UTR vs. 2.5% for CTR), prosthesis loosening rate (16.3% for UTR vs. 5.9% for CTR), and periprosthetic fracture rate (12.0% for UTR vs. 4.2% for CTR). Conclusion In the setting of revision of failed primary MoM-TR, CTR may demonstrate advantages over UTR in improving functional outcomes and reducing key orthopaedic complications.

AUTOPSY ANALYSIS THIRTY YEARS AFTER METAL-ON-METAL TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT

2003 ◽  
Vol 85 (11) ◽  
pp. 2218-2222 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAT CAMPBELL ◽  
ROBERT M. URBAN ◽  
ISABELLE CATELAS ◽  
ANASTASIA K. SKIPOR ◽  
THOMAS P. SCHMALZRIED
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document