High failure rates with a large-diameter hybrid metal-on-metal total hip replacement

2011 ◽  
Vol 93-B (5) ◽  
pp. 608-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. J. R. F. Bolland ◽  
D. J. Culliford ◽  
D. J. Langton ◽  
J. P. S. Millington ◽  
N. K. Arden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

Failure rates of Asian-type anatomic medullary locking stemmed metal-on-metal total hip replacement: A cause for adverse tissue reactions to metal debris (ARMD)

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 779-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masaru Nakamura ◽  
Tateaki Shimakawa ◽  
Shunji Nakano ◽  
Takashi Chikawa ◽  
Shinji Yoshioka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Metal Debris ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Tissue Reactions

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

scholarly journals Repeated cobalt and chromium ion measurements in patients with large-diameter head metal-on-metal ReCap-M2A-Magnum total hip replacement

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heikki Mäntymäki ◽  
Petteri Lankinen ◽  
Tero Vahlberg ◽  
Aleksi Reito ◽  
Antti Eskelinen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Chromium Ion ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

scholarly journals Repeated cobalt and chromium ion measurements in patients with bilateral large-diameter head metal-on-metal ReCap-M2A-Magnum total hip replacement

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-382
Author(s):  
Sakari Pietiläinen ◽  
Heikki Mäntymäki ◽  
Tero Vahlberg ◽  
Aleksi Reito ◽  
Antti Eskelinen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Chromium Ion ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

High incidence of pseudotumour formation after large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacement

2012 ◽  
Vol 94-B (6) ◽  
pp. 755-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. H. Bosker ◽  
H. B. Ettema ◽  
M. F. Boomsma ◽  
B. J. Kollen ◽  
M. Maas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
High Incidence

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document