Less range of motion with resurfacing arthroplasty than with total hip arthroplasty: In vitro examination of 8 designs

Acta Orthopaedica

Volumn 79, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 755-762

  Bengs, Benjamin C ^a   Sangiorgio, Sophia N ^b   Ebramzadeh, Edward ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b JOINT REPLACEMENT INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POLYETHYLENE;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; FEMUR NECK FRACTURE; FEMUR NECK IMPINGEMENT; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY; IN VITRO STUDY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JOINT MOBILITY; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; RANGE OF MOTION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

ADULT; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR;

EID: 57749117201     PISSN: 17453674     EISSN: 17453682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17453670810016812     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Alberton G M, High W A, Morrey B F. Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2004; 12 (5): 314-21
2. Amstutz H C, Editor. Metal on metal hip prostheses: past performances and future directions, Raven Publishers, Philadelphia 1996: S2.
3. Amstutz H C, Lodwig R M, Schurman D J, Hodgson A G. Range of motion studies for total hip replacements. A comparative study with a new experimental apparatus. Clin Orthop 1975; (111): 124-30.
4. Amstutz H C, Grigoris P, Dorey F J. Evolution and future of surface replacement of the hip. J Orthop Sci 1998; 3: 169-86.
5. Bader R, Scholtz R, Steinhauser E, et al. The influence of head and neck geometry on stability of total hip replacement. Acta Orthopaedica 2004; 75 4: 415-21.
6. Ball S T, Le Duff M J, Amstutz H C. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2007; 89 (4): 735-41.
7. Barrack R L. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation. Review. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2003; 11 (2): 89-99.
8. Chandler D R, Glousman R, Hull D, McGuire P J, Kim I S, Clarke I C, Sarmiento A. Prosthetic hip range of motion and impingement. The effects of head and neck geometry. Clin Orthop 1982; (166): 284-91.
9. Cristofolini L, Viceconti M, Cappello A, Toni A. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models. Review. J Biomech 1996; 29 (4): 525-35.
10. Harty J A, Devitt B, Harty L C, Molloy M, McGuinness A. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry analysis of peri-prosthetic stress shielding in the Birmingham resurfacing hip replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005; 125 (10): 693-5. Epub 2005 Oct 20.
11. Howie D W, Campbell D, McGee M, et al. Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty. The results of one hundred consecutive arthroplasties after 8 to 10 years. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1990; 72: 708-14.
12. Perron M, Malouin F, Moffet H, McFadyen B J. Three-dimensional gait analysis in women with a total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2000; 15 (7): 504-15.
13. Rieker C B, Kottig P, Schon R, et al. Clinical wear performance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. In: Alternative bearing surfaces in total joint replacements (eds. Jacobs J, Craig T, L). ASTM, Conshohocken 1998: 144.
14. Vogt L, Brettmann K, Pfeifer K, Banzer W. Walking patterns of hip arthroplasty patients: some observations on the medio-lateral excursions of the trunk. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25 (7): 309-17.
15. Watelain E, Dujardin F, Babier F, Dubois D, Allard P. Pelvic and lower limb compensatory actions of subjects in an early stage of hip osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82 (12): 1705-11.