Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Patients with Varus Deformity of the Femoral Neck-Shaft Angle

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme S. Carlile ◽  
Christopher P. Wakeling ◽  
Nichola Fuller ◽  
Darren Fern ◽  
Mark R. Norton
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Varus Deformity ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Neck Shaft Angle ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Shaft Angle

scholarly journals CUSTOMIZED GUIDE FOR FEMORAL COMPONENT POSITIONING IN HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-106
Author(s):  
Chaturong Pornrattanamaneewong ◽  
Rapeepat Narkbunnam ◽  
Keerati Chareancholvanich
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Posterior Part ◽  
Image Intensifier ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Three Dimensional Model ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Neck Axis ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty

ABSTRACT Objective: To prove the accuracy of a customized guide developed according to our method. Methods: This customized guide was developed from a three-dimensional model of proximal femur reconstructed using computed tomography data. Based on the new technique, the position of the guide pin insertion was selected and adjusted using the reference of the anatomical femoral neck axis. The customized guide consists of a hemispheric covering designed to fit the posterior part of the femoral neck. The performance of the customized guide was tested in eight patients scheduled for total hip arthroplasty. The stability of the customized guide was assessed by orthopedic surgeons. An intraoperative image intensifier was used to assess the accuracy. Results: The customized guide was stabilized with full contact and was fixed in place in all patients. The mean angular deviations in relation to the what was planned in anteroposterior and lateral hip radiographs were 0.5º ± 1.8º in valgus and 1.0º ± 2.4º in retroversion, respectively. Conclusion: From this pilot test, the authors suggest that the proposed technique could be applied as a customized guide to the positioning device for hip resurfacing arthroplasty with acceptable accuracy and user-friendly interface. Level of Evidence IV, Cases Series.

Femoral Neck Fracture After Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gulraj S. Matharu ◽  
Callum W. McBryde ◽  
Matthew P. Revell ◽  
Paul B. Pynsent
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Femoral Neck Fracture ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Birmingham Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Neck Fracture

Results of a Stemmed Bone Ingrowth HIP Resurfacing Arthroplasty in the Canine

1985 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. C. Kim ◽  
H. Rechl ◽  
H. C. Amstutz ◽  
K. Hermens ◽  
P. F. O'Carroll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Bone Ingrowth ◽  
Stress Shielding ◽  
Load Sharing ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Compressive Stresses ◽  
Acetabular Components

ABSTRACTA stemmed bone ingrowth hip resurfacing arthroplasty designed for use with bone deficient femoral heads raises concerns of stress shielding and is investigated in this study. Ten CoCr bone ingrowth hip resurfacing devices were implanted in five adult canines. Design consisted of a 6mm deep cylindrical cavity with porous beaded surface of 150um pore size and Imm nominal depth. A 3mm diameter smooth CoCr stem was eccentrically fixed to the component for additional fixation with threaded nut at the lateral cortex. Femoral head was reamed for interference fit with hole for the stem placed superiorly. Acrylic fixed polyethylene cups were used for acetabular components. Animals were followed with serial radiographs to sacrifice at 73 to 267 days. After sacrifice microradiographs of ground sections and histologic specimens were evaluated for bone ingrowth, remodeling, and femoral neck attenuation. All specimens showed well ingrown bone at the porous layer. Bone remodeling showed preservation of proximal femoral neck cancellous trabecular pattern and medial cortical support. Resorption of bone at the implant rim and femoral neck thinning were, however, present. Two specimens had neck thinning of 10% or less, four of 10 to 25%, three of 25 to 50%, and one greater than 50%. There was no correlation with time to sacrifice for parameters evaluated. Results indicate preservation of the compressive stresses through the femoral head. Resorption of bone at the rim and femoral neck attenuation, however, indicates load sharing between the implant and bone. Though a lower modulus material such as titanium would decrease load sharing, the geometrical design insures the presence of stress distribution anomalies.

scholarly journals Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter

2008 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 748-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Kluess ◽  
Carmen Zietz ◽  
Tobias Lindner ◽  
Wolfram Mittelmeier ◽  
Klaus-Peter Schmitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Limited Range ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Head Size ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Limited Range Of Motion ◽  
Prosthetic Head ◽  
Neck Diameter

Posterior Femoral Neck Impingement Secondary to Excess Acetabular Anteversion in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 1580.e9-1580.e11
Author(s):  
Benan M. Dala-Ali ◽  
Matthew Welck ◽  
Ian Osborne ◽  
Sarah K. Muirhead-Allwood
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Acetabular Anteversion ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty

BIOMECHANICAL STUDY ON MECHANISMS OF FEMORAL NECK FRACTURE AFTER HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (05) ◽  
pp. 1950042
Author(s):  
WEN-HSIANG CHOU ◽  
CHIEN-WEI LIU
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Femoral Neck Fracture ◽  
Recovery Period ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Shielding Effect ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Neck Fracture ◽  
The Impact

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is a long-established procedure. It is a minimally invasive surgery where the surgical wound is relatively small to facilitate a shorter recovery period. HRA remained a popular option among the patients allowing better range of motion of the joint compared to that of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although HRA is associated with the above advantages, complications involving femoral neck fractures after surgery still occur. Therefore, the present study attempts to assess the impact of stress under various alignment conditions and different scenarios in surgical errors upon the femoral neck in hip resurfacing prostheses (HRP) that may be encountered during the procedure using finite element analysis (FEA) technique. The results showed that anteversion implantation errors on femoral components should be avoided, and that the main reason that causes femoral neck fracture is related to the stress shielding effect generated internally in the femoral neck. Methods to prevent the incidence of such events are a major obstacle to be solved in the future.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty for patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-17
Author(s):  
Kyle W. Morse ◽  
Edwin P. Su
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Femoral Neck Fracture ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Neck Fracture

Introduction: Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty has led to decreased revision rates and high implant survival rates as compared to prior generations of resurfacing. Many of the series that report on resurfacing outcomes focus upon patients treated with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Patients with inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are also treated in these series, however, their outcomes following resurfacing are underreported. The aim of this study was to determine complications that may occur following hip resurfacing in patients with inflammatory arthritis. A secondary aim was to determine functional outcomes following resurfacing. Methods: A search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed/OVID), Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. 5 studies met eligibility criteria. This review includes 196 hips; 120 had a diagnosis of AS or seronegative spondyloarthropathy and 76 had a diagnosis of RA or juvenile RA. 8 revisions were reported at a mean time of 64.2 (8.67-275.58) weeks. Results: Femoral neck fracture was the most common indication for revision, occurring in 3.06% of all hips at 34.5 weeks (16.0-52.0). 2 infections, 2 reports of acetabular radiolucency, and no dislocations were reported. The University of California at Los Angeles score, Harris Hip Score, and Range of Motion were the most common functional outcomes measured, which increased in the majority of studies following resurfacing. Conclusions: Femoral neck fracture was the most common reason for revision in patients with inflammatory arthritis following resurfacing and there were no dislocations reported. Following resurfacing, these patients have improved functional outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document