The Optimal Metal-Metal Arthroplasty is Still a Total Hip Arthroplasty. In the Affirmative

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 21, Issue 4 SUPPL., 2006, Pages 74-76

  Cuckler, John M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

hip resurfacing; metal metal; total hip arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

METAL;

ARTICLE; FEMUR; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; STANDARD; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; BIOMECHANICS; FEMUR; HUMANS; METALS; PATIENT SELECTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR;

EID: 33745027440     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.02.091     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Wyness L., McCormack K., Grant A., et al. The effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing: a systematic review of the available evidence published before 2002. BMC Health Serv Res 27 (2004) 39
2. McMinn D., Treacy R., Lin K., et al. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Clin Orthop 329S (1996) 89S
3. Corin Group Ltd. Industry Submission 2001. In: Vale L., Wyness L., McCormack K., et al. (Eds). Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease 329S (2002), Health Technology Assessment 15
4. Oswestry Outcome Centre. Oswestry Outcome Centre, The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital NHS Trust. In: Vale L., Waynes L., McCoramck K., et al. (Eds). Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease 6 (2002), Health Technology Assessment 15
5. Wright Cremascoli Ortho Ltd. Industry Submission 2001. In: Vale L., Wyness L., McCormack K., et al. (Eds). Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease 329S (2002), Health Technology Assessment 15
6. Lilikakis A.K., Vowler S.L., and Villar R.N. Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral implant in metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty: minimum of two years follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36 (2005) 21
7. Daniel J., Pynsent P.B., and McMinn D.J. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86 (2004) 177
8. Treacy R.B., McBryde C.W., and Pynsent P.B. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87 (2005) 167
9. Howie D.W., McGee M.A., Costi K., et al. Metal-on-metal resurfacing versus total hip replacement-the value of a randomized clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am 36 (2005) 195
10. Amstutz H.C., Beaulé P.E., Dorey F.J., et al. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86 (2004) 28
11. Mont M., Ragland P., Bezwada H., et al. The results of metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty: learning curve stratification of results. Presented at the annual meeting of the AAOS, Washington, D.C. (2005)
12. Beaule P.E., Dorey F.J., LeDuff M., et al. Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop 418 (2004) 8
13. Loughead J.M., Chesney D., Holland J.P., et al. Comparison of offset in Birmingham hip resurfacing and hybrid total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87 (2005) 163
14. Loughead J.M., Starks I., Chesney D., et al. Does hip resurfacing remove more bone from the acetabulum than uncemented total hip arthroplasty?. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the AAOS, Washington, D.C. (2005)