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.

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

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.

Risk of Periprosthetic Femoral Neck Fracture After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: Valgus Compared with Anatomic Alignment

2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. 96-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey J Richards ◽  
Demetri Giannitsios ◽  
Olga L Huk ◽  
David J Zukor ◽  
Thomas Steffen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Femoral Neck Fracture ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Neck Fracture ◽  
Anatomic Alignment

scholarly journals Femoral Neck Fractures Complicating Metal-on-Metal Resurfaced Hips: A Report of 2 Cases

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Sharma ◽  
B Rana ◽  
C Watson ◽  
AC Campbell ◽  
BJ Singh
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Femoral Neck Fracture ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Hip Disease ◽  
Neck Fracture ◽  
Technical Complication

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty is increasingly popular for younger patients with advanced hip disease. Intra-operative or immediate postoperative femoral neck fracture after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is a well-described technical complication, ranging from 0% to 1.5%. We report 2 cases of late femoral neck fracture occurring 8 and 15 months following the index operation, with a review of the literature. We recommend that patient selection should be of prime importance before embarking on metal-on-metal surface hip replacement to avoid such complications.

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.

scholarly journals Calcar buttressed screw fixation for femoral neck fracture

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 145
Author(s):  
K. K. Arvind Manoj ◽  
R. Karthik ◽  
A. Vishnu Sankar
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Femoral Neck Fracture ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Fixation Strength ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Average Period ◽  
Excellent Outcome ◽  
Neck Fracture

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> The incidence of neck of femur fracture among elderly population is increasing day by day. Femoral neck fracture has always been an unsolved fracture<strong> </strong>as far as treatment and results are concerned. There are different views regarding the optimal method of internal fixation in femoral neck fractures. Biomechanical data from literature suggest that calcar fixation is superior to central screws placement. This study aims to analyse the functional and radiological outcome of femoral neck fractures treated by calcar buttressed screw fixation described by Filipov as biplane double supported screw fixation.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> This is a prospective study conducted in our institution from May 2015 to May 2018.The study included 43 patients (31 male, 12 female) with femoral neck fracture. Three 6.5-mm cannulated screws were laid in two medially diverging oblique planes. The distal and the middle screws were supported on the calcar. The distal screw had additional support on the posterior neck cortex. Patients were followed up for average period of 2 years. Functional outcome was evaluated using Harris Hip score.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> Bone union occurred in 40 patients (93%) with average period of 3-4 months.<strong> </strong>51.2% of cases had<strong> </strong>excellent outcome. 23.2% of cases had good and 16.3% of cases had fair outcome. 9.3% of cases ended with poor outcome. Non union was reported in 3 patients (7%) and AVN in one patient. Various factors like age, Garden and Pauwel fracture types, time of presentation and time of surgery were statistically significant to the final functional outcome in our study.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> By providing additional calcar buttress compared to conventional method, this technique of screw fixation enhances femoral neck fracture fixation strength and reduces the fixation failure. </p>

A randomized controlled trial of cemented versus cementless arthroplasty in patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture

2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (8) ◽  
pp. 1087-1093 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Barenius ◽  
C. Inngul ◽  
Z. Alagic ◽  
A. Enocson
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Femoral Neck Fracture ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Neck Fracture ◽  
Euroqol 5D ◽  
Displaced Fracture

Aims The aim of this study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes in patients with a displaced fracture of the hip who were treated with a cemented or a cementless femoral stem. Patients and Methods A four-year follow-up of a randomized controlled study included 141 patients who underwent surgery for a displaced femoral neck fracture. Patients were randomized to receive either a cemented (n = 67) or a cementless (n = 74) stem at hemiarthroplasty (HA; n = 83) or total hip arthroplasty (THA; n = 58). Results Early differences in functional outcome, assessed using the Harris Hip Score, the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment score and EuroQol-5D, with better results in cemented group, deteriorated over time and there were no statistically significant differences at 48 months. Two (3%) patients in the cemented group and five (6.8%) in the cementless group underwent further surgery for a periprosthetic fracture. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.4). No patient underwent further surgery for instability or infection between one and four years postoperatively. The mortality and the radiological outcomes were similar in both groups. Conclusion Patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture treated with an arthroplasty using a cemented or cementless stem had good function and few complications up to four years postoperatively. However, due to the poor short-term functional outcomes in the cementless group, the findings do not support their routine use in the treatment of these elderly patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1087–93.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty in the same patient: which do they prefer?

2019 ◽  
pp. 112070001988292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler E Calkins ◽  
Linda I Suleiman ◽  
Chris Culvern ◽  
Sulaiman Alazzawi ◽  
Gregory S Kazarian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Contralateral Side ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported

Introduction: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) with potential advantages of preserving femoral bone stock and the ability to participate in higher impact activities. This study compares outcomes, satisfaction and preference in patients who underwent HRA in 1 hip and THA on the contralateral side. Methods: 62 Patients with an HRA in 1 hip and a contralateral THA were retrospectively identified at 3 centres, consisting of 38 males and 24 females with 53 patients (85.5%) undergoing HRA first. A survey regarding satisfaction and preference for each procedure and outcome scores were obtained. Results: Patients were younger (51.5 vs. 56.6 years, p = 0.002) and had longer follow-up on the HRA hip (11.0 vs. 6.0 years, p < 0.001). HRA was associated with larger increase in Harris Hip Score from preoperative to final follow-up (35.8 vs. 30.6, p = 0.035). 18 Patients (29.0%) preferred HRA, 19 (30.6%) preferred THA and 25 (40.3%) had no preference ( p = 0.844). When asked what they would choose if they could only have 1 surgery again, 41 (66.1%, p < 0.001) picked HRA. Overall satisfaction ( p = 0.504), willingness to live with their HRA versus THA for the rest of their life ( p = 0.295) and recommendation to others ( p = 0.097) were similar. Conclusions: Although HRA is associated with risks related to metal-on-metal bearings, it showed greater increase in patient-reported outcomes and a small subjective preference amongst patients who have undergone both conventional and resurfacing arthroplasty.

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

Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Inflammatory Arthritis

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajesh Malhotra ◽  
Arun Kannan ◽  
Vijay Kumar ◽  
Chethan Nagaraj ◽  
Kanniraj Marimuthu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document