scholarly journals Revision total hip arthroplasty for metal-on-metal failure

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin S. Chang ◽  
Fares S. Haddad
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Metal Failure

Outcome of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Management of Failed Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 2559-2563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wael A. Rahman ◽  
Tomás Amenábar ◽  
Bandar M. Hetaimish ◽  
Oleg A. Safir ◽  
Paul R. Kuzyk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

scholarly journals Inflammatory Pseudotumor Complicated by Recurrent Dislocations after Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Ryan Quinn ◽  
Jason Lee ◽  
Ran Schwarzkopf
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Inflammatory Pseudotumor ◽  
Major Complication ◽  
Recurrent Dislocation ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
History Of

A 71-year-old female with a history of right total hip arthroplasty presented with an enlarging pseudotumor. Pseudotumor is a known complication following metal-on-metal and metal-on-conventional polyethylene and metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene implants. Revision total hip arthroplasty following resection of pseudotumor has resulted in an increase in incidence of postoperative complications. Despite stable implants, these complications arise from the amount of soft tissue damage combined with the loss of tissue support around the resected hip. Our case is a clear example of a major complication, recurrent dislocation, following resection and revision surgery.

Revision total hip arthroplasty with metal on metal bearing for ceramic bearing fractures

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 452-457
Author(s):  
Kyung-Soon Park ◽  
Chee Ken Chan ◽  
Sung-Kyu Kim ◽  
Qing Song Li ◽  
Chae-Jin Im ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Ceramic Bearing ◽  
Metal On Metal

scholarly journals Small-head metal on metal total hip arthroplasty is associated with a high rate of complication and reoperation at mid-term follow-up

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 205031212110147
Author(s):  
Nobuhiko Sumiyoshi ◽  
Kazuhiro Oinuma ◽  
Yoko Miura
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Small Diameter ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Metal Debris ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Small Head

Background: Adverse reactions to metal debris are significant complications after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Recently, late appearances of adverse reactions to metal debris and subsequent need for reoperations have been reported with small-diameter head metal-on-metal devices. We retrospectively investigated mid-term clinical outcomes of small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Methods: We reviewed 159 hips in 139 patients who had a small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (M2a Taper; Biomet, Warsaw, IN) with a minimum 5-year follow-up and documented postoperative complications. Results: Focal osteolysis in either the femur or acetabulum was observed in 12 hips (7.5%, 44 months after surgery on average), with pseudotumor observed in 8 hips (5%, 120 months after surgery on average). Four hips (2.5%) had dislocations (84 months after surgery on average) and six hips (3.8%, 122 months after surgery on average) underwent reoperation. Conclusion: Small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty is associated with a high degree of complications at mid-term follow-up period. Considering this, we discourage the use of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty regardless of head size.

Clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular or non-modular stems: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002110043
Author(s):  
Antonios A Koutalos ◽  
Sokratis Varitimidis ◽  
Konstantinos N Malizos ◽  
Theofilos Karachalios
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Fracture Rate ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes

Purpose: The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate clinical outcomes of tapered fluted stems, either monoblock or modular, in revision total hip arthroplasty. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science and Cochrane databases were systematically searched by 2 researchers. Clinical studies reporting primarily on survival and re-revision rates, and secondarily on subsidence, dislocation, intraoperative fractures, periprosthetic fractures and infection were included. 2 investigators assessed the quality of the studies. Results: 46 studies were included in this review, reporting on 4601 stem revisions. The pooled re-revision rate was 5.1% and long-term survival ranged from 75% to 98.5%. No differences were observed between monoblock and modular stems regarding re-revision rate, dislocation rate, periprosthetic fracture rate or infection rates. Monoblock stems exhibited more subsidence and modular stems displayed more intraoperative fractures. Conclusions: Satisfactory results can be obtained with the use of tapered fluted end-bearing stems. Monoblock stems offer the same clinical results as modular stems.

Injury to the Colon During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 881-884 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey S. Hagstrom ◽  
Dennis J. Callahan ◽  
James W. Green
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document