"top 10" technical pearls for successfully performing hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Techniques in Orthopaedics

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 73-79

  Amstutz, Harlan C ^a  

^a ST VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Hip; Metal on metal; Resurfacing; Surgical technique

Indexed keywords

HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LIABILITY; METAL IMPLANTATION; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PATIENT SELECTION; REVIEW;

EID: 77949383243     PISSN: 08859698     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BTO.0b013e3181d2d6e7     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Back D, Dalziel R, Young D, et al. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings: an independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:324-329.
2. Naal F, Maffiuletti N, Munzinger U, et al. Sports after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:705-711.
3. Schmalzried T, Le Duff M. Rehabilitation and activity following total hip resurfacing. In: Amstutz HC, ed. Hip Resurfacing: Principles, Indications, Technique, and Results. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2008: 245-251.
4. Vendittoli P, Lavigne M, Roy A, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and metalon- metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. Hip Int 2006;16(suppl 4):873-881.
5. Howie DW, Campbell D, McGee M, et al. Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty. The results of one hundred consecutive arthroplasties after eight to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:708-714.
6. Amstutz H, Le Duff M. Eleven years of experience with metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing: a review of 1000 conserve plus. J Arthroplasty 2008;23(suppl 1):36-43.
7. Amstutz H, Le Duff M, Campbell P, et al. The first 100 metal-on-metal hybrid ConservePlus hip resurfacings with a minimum 10 year followup. Part I: clinical and radiographic results. J Bone and Joint Surg Am In press.
8. Hing C, Back D, Bailey M, et al. The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years: an independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:1431-1438.
9. Khan M, Kuiper J, Edwards D, et al. Birmingham hip arthroplasty five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24:1044-1050.
10. Nishii T, Sugano N, Miki H, et al. Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:176-183.
11. Treacy R, McBryde C, Pynsent P. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:167-170.
12. O'Neill M, Beaule P, Bin Nasser A, et al. Canadian academic experience with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009;67:128-131.
13. Nunley R, Zhu J, Brooks P, et al. The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468: 382-391.
14. Witjes S, Smolders J, Beaulé P, et al. Learning from the learning curve in total hip resurfacing: a radiographic analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009;129:1293-1299.
15. Amstutz H, Le Duff M, Campbell P, et al. The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing: results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3-9 year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:481-489.
16. Mont M, Seyler T, Ulrich S, et al. Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;465: 63-70.
17. Amstutz H, Beaulé P, Dorey F, et al. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty. Surgical technique. J Bone and Joint Surg Am 2006; 88(suppl 1, pt. 2):234-249.
18. Maguire C, Seyler T, Boyd H, et al. Hip resurfacing- keys to success. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009;67:142-145.
19. Radcliffe I, Taylor M. Investigation into the effect of varus-valgus orientation on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: a multifemur finite element analysis. Clin Biomech 2007;22:780-786.
20. Campbell P, Takamura K, Lundergan W, et al. Cement technique changes improved hip resurfacing longevity: implant retrieval findings. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009;67:146-153.
21. Beaulé PE, Matar WY, Poitras P, et al. 2008 Otto Aufranc Award: component design and technique affect cement penetration in hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009 Jan;467(1):84-93. Epub 2008 Oct 16.
22. Bitsch R, Heisel C, Silva M, et al. Femoral cementing technique for hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2007;25:423-431.
23. Amstutz H, Le Duff M. Cementing the metaphyseal stem in metalon- metal resurfacing: when and why. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467:79-83.
24. Wang C, Amstutz H. Bilateral metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing in a patient with osteopetrosis: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:2941-2944.
25. De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill H, et al. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90:1291-1297.
26. De Haan R, Campbell P, Su E, et al. Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90:1158-1163.
27. Hart A, Buddhdev P, Winship P, et al. Cup inclination angle of greater than 50 degrees increases whole blood concentrations of cobalt and chromium ions after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Hip Int 2008;18: 212-219.
28. Malviya A, Lingard E, Malik A, et al. Hip flexion after Birmingham hip resurfacing role of cup anteversion, anterior femoral head-neck offset, and head-neck ratio. J Arthroplasty 2009 Mar. 12 [Epub ahead of print].
29. Bengs B, Sangiorgio S, Ebramzadeh E. Less range of motion with resurfacing arthroplasty than with total hip arthroplasty: in vitro examination of 8 designs. Acta Orthop 2008;79:755-762.
30. Kluess D, Zietz C, Lindner T, et al. Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter. Acta Orthop 2008;79:748-754.
31. Williams D, Royle M, Norton M. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing the effect of cup position and component size on range of motion to impingement. J Arthroplasty 2009;24:144-151.
32. dela Rosa M, Silva M, Heisel C, et al. Range of motion after total hip resurfacing. Orthopedics 2007;30:352-357.
33. Le Duff M, Wisk L, Amstutz H. Range of motion after stemmed total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing: a clinical study. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009;67:177-181.
34. Ball S, Schmalzried T. Posterior femoroacetabular impingement (PFAI)-after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009; 67:173-176.
35. Gruen T, Le Duff M, Wisk L, et al. The first 100 metal-on-metal hybrid Conserve Plus hip resurfacings with a minimum 10 year follow-up. Part II: repetitive impingement syndrome with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: radiographic assessment and clinical significance. J Bone and Joint Surg Am In press.
36. Langton D, Jameson S, Joyce T, et al. The effect of component size and orientation on the concentrations of metal ions after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90:1143-1151.