Use of Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Resurfacing for the Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (suppl_3) ◽  
pp. 90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Mont
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

USE OF METAL-ON-METAL TOTAL HIP RESURFACING FOR THE TREATMENT OF OSTEONECROSIS OF THE FEMORAL HEAD

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 90-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL A. MONT ◽  
THORSTEN M. SEYLER ◽  
DAVID R. MARKER ◽  
GERMAN A. MARULANDA ◽  
RONALD E. DELANOIS
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

scholarly journals The Performance of Mixed Manufacturer Metal On Metal Total Hip Replacements

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Barker Cook ◽  
Jeremy M. Latham ◽  
Robert J.K. Wood
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Normal Range ◽  
Material Loss ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Loss Analysis ◽  
Total Hip Replacements ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Hip Replacements ◽  
Stem Damage

Using a femoral head from one manufacturer on the stem of another manufacturer poses the risk that the taper interface between the components may not contact correctly and the performance of the joint will be impaired. The cohorts in this study are a combination of modular Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) and Adept femoral heads on CPT stems. The study reviews the geometry of the taper interfaces to establish if the taper clearance angles was outside of the normal range for other taper interfaces. In addition the rates of material loss from the bearings and taper and a ranking of the stem damage were reviewed to determine if the levels of loss were above that seen for other similar joints. The material loss analysis demonstrated that the rates or levels of loss from the bearings, taper and stem were no different to levels published for manufacturer matched joints and in many cases were lower. The results demonstrate that the taper clearance angles for the mixed manufacturer joints (BHR-CPT: 0.067 to -0.116, Adept-CPT: 0.101 to -0.056) were within the range of other studies and manufacturer matched clearances (0.134 to -0.149).Using components from different manufacturers has not in this instance increased the level of material loss from the joints, when compared to other similar manufacturer matched joints.

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

Hip Resurfacing vs. Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

2011 ◽  
pp. 137-152
Author(s):  
Sanket R. Diwanji ◽  
Pascal-André Vendittoli ◽  
Martin Lavigne
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
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

Surveillance of Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing and Total Hip Prostheses

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (13) ◽  
pp. 1091-1099 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.J Hart ◽  
S.A Sabah ◽  
B Sampson ◽  
J.A Skinner ◽  
J.J Powell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Hip Prostheses ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Total Hip Prostheses
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document