The Effect of Patient Selection and Surgical Technique on the Results of Conserve® Plus Hip Resurfacing-3.5- to 14-Year Follow-up

Orthopedic Clinics of North America

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 133-142

  Amstutz, Harlan C ^a   Takamura, Karren M ^a   Le Duff, Michel J ^a  

^a ST VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Hip resurfacing; Metal on metal; Survivorship

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FEMUR NECK FRACTURE; FOLLOW UP; HIP RESURFACING; HIP SURGERY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METAL IMPLANTATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEPSIS; SURGICAL RISK; SURVIVAL RATE; TISSUE REACTION; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT FAILURE;

ADULT; AGED; BODY MASS INDEX; CEMENTATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REOPERATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79952795104     PISSN: 00305898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2010.12.005     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Vail T., Mont M., McGrath M., et al. Hip resurfacing: patient and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(Suppl 5):2-4.
2. Quesada M., Marker D., Mont M. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: advantages and disadvantages. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23(Suppl 7):69-73.
3. Mont M., Marker D.R., Smith J., et al. Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467(1):66-71.
4. Vail T., Mina C., Yergler J., et al. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 453:123-131.
5. Beaulé P., Dorey F., Le Duff M., et al. Risk factors affecting outcome of metal on metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop 2004, 418:87-93.
6. Marker D., Seyler T., Jinnah R., et al. Femoral neck fractures after metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2007, 22(7 Suppl 3):66-71.
7. Schmalzried T., Silva M., de la Rosa M., et al. Optimizing patient selection and outcomes with total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 441:200-204.
8. 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(3):324-329.
9. Langton D., Jameson S., Joyce T., et al. Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: a consequence of excess wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010, 92(1):38-46.
10. Amstutz H. Hip resurfacing: principles, indications, technique and results 2008, Saunders - Elsevier, Philadelphia.
11. Witzleb W., Arnold M., Krummenauer F., et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: short-term clinical and radiographic outcome. Eur J Med Res 2008, 13(1):39-46.
12. Khan M., Kuiper J., Edwards D., et al. Birmingham hip arthroplasty five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. J Arthroplasty 2009, 24(7):1044-1050.
13. Madhu T., Akula M., Raman R., et al. The Birmingham hip resurfacing prosthesis an independent single surgeon's experience at 7-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2011, 26(1):1-8.
14. 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(6 Suppl 1):36-43.
15. Revell M., McBryde C., Bhatnagar S., et al. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88(Suppl 3):98-103.
16. Amstutz H., Le Duff M., Campbell P., et al. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010, 92(16):2663-2671.
17. McBryde C., Theivendran K., Thomas A., et al. The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010, 92(1):107-112.
18. Graves S. Annual Report. Australian Orthopaedic Association-National joint replacement registry. Adelaide, 2009.
19. Glyn-Jones S., Pandit H., Kwon Y., et al. Risk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009, 91(12):1566-1574.
20. Jameson S., Langton D., Nargol A. Articular surface replacement of the hip: a prospective single-surgeon series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010, 92(1):28-37.
21. Amstutz H., Beaulé P., Dorey F., et al. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty-surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88(Suppl 1 part 2):234-249.
22. 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(4):481-489.
23. Amstutz H., Beaulé P., Dorey F., et al. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86:28-39.
24. Le Duff M., Amstutz H., Dorey F. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing for obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89(12):2705-2711.
25. Amstutz H., Ball S., Le Duff M., et al. Hip resurfacing for patients under 50 years of age. Results of 350 Conserve Plus with a 2-9 year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 460:159-164.
26. Le Duff M., Wang C., Wisk L., et al. Benefits of thin-shelled acetabular components for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2010, 28(12):1665-1670.
27. Harris W. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969, 51(4):737-755.
28. Amstutz H., Thomas B., Jinnah R., et al. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984, 66(2):228-241.
29. Ware J., Kosinski M., Keller S. SF-12: how to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales 1998, Quality Metric Inc, Lincoln (RI). 3rd edition.
30. Langton D., Sprowson A., Mahadeva D., et al. Cup anteversion in hip resurfacing: validation of EBRA and the presentation of a simple clinical grading system. J Arthroplasty 2009, 25(4):607-613.
31. Langton D., Sprowson A., Joyce T., et al. Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study of articular surface replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009, 91(10):1287-1295.
32. Campbell P., Ebramzadeh E., Nelson S., et al. Histological features of pseudotumor-like tissues from metal-on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468(9):2321-2327.
33. Amstutz H., Campbell P., Le Duff M. Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86(9):1874-1877.
34. Eswaramoorthy V., Moonot P., Kalairajah Y., et al. The Metasul metal-on-metal articulation in primary total hip replacement: clinical and radiological results at ten years. J Bone and Joint Surg Br 2008, 90(10):1278-1283.
35. Sharma S., Vassan U., Bhamra M. Metal-on-metal total hip joint replacement: a minimum follow-up of five years. Hip Int 2007, 17(2):70-77.
36. Saito S., Ryu J., Ishii T., et al. Midterm results of Metasul metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthropl 2006, 21(8):1105-1110.
37. McLaughlin J., Lee K. Total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented femoral component. Excellent results at ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997, 79(6):900-907.
38. Sinha R., Dungy B., Yeon H. Primary total hip arthroplasty with a proximally porous-coated femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surgery Am 2004, 86(6):1254-1261.
39. Tindall A., James K., Slack R., et al. Long-term follow-up of a hydroxyapatite ceramic-coated threaded cup: an analysis of survival and fixation at up to 15 years. J Arthrop 2007, 22(8):1079-1082.
40. Duffy G.P., Berry D.J., Rowland C., et al. Primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients <40 years old: 10- to 14-year results using first-generation proximally porous-coated implants. J Arthroplasty 2001, 16(8 Suppl 1):140-144.
41. Garcia-Cimbrelo E., Cruz-Pardos A., Madero R., et al. Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of the Cementless Zweymuller Alloclassic System: a ten to thirteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85-A(2):296-303.
42. Mallory T., Lombardi A.J., Leith J., et al. Minimal 10-year results of a tapered cementless femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001, 16(8 Suppl 1):49-54.
43. Richards C., Duncan C., Bassam A., et al. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468(2):491-496.
44. McGrath M., Marker D.R., Seyler T., et al. Surface replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467:94-100.
45. Ball S., Le Duff M., Amstutz H. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:735-741.
46. Daniel J., Ziaee H., Kamali A., et al. Ten-year results of a double-heat-treated metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010, 92(1):20-27.
47. Garbuz D., Tanzer M., Greidanus N., et al. The John Charnley Award: metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468(2):318-325.
48. Lavigne M., Therrien M., Nantel J., et al. The John Charnley Award: the functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468(2):326-336.
49. Lavigne M., Masse V., Girard J., et al. Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2008, 94(4):361-367.
50. Pollard T., Baker R., Eastaugh-Waring S., et al. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006, 88(5):592-600.
51. Vendittoli P., Ganapathi M., Roy A., et al. A comparison of clinical results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and 28 mm metal on metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomised trial with 3-6 years follow-up. Hip Int 2010, 20(1):1-13.
52. Pocock N., Eisman J., Gwinn T., et al. Muscle strength, physical fitness, and weight but not age predict femoral neck bone mass. J Bone Miner Res 1989, 4(3):441-448.
53. Amstutz H., Su E., Le Duff M., et al. Are there benefits to one- versus two-stage procedures in bilateral hip resurfacing?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, [Epub ahead of print].
54. Prosser G., Yates P., Wood D., et al. Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision. Acta Orthop 2010, 468(2):382-391.
55. Nunley R., Zhu J., Brooks P., et al. The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468(2):382-391.
56. 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(2):128-131.
57. 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(10):1293-1299.
58. Amstutz H. Indications for metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing. Hip resurfacing: principles, indications, technique and results 2008, 95-102. Elsevier, Philadelphia. H.C. Amstutz (Ed.).