The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty
- PMID: 14711943
- DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200401000-00007
The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty
Abstract
Background: With the advent of more wear-resistant bearings, there is renewed interest in resurfacing total hip arthroplasty. However, there is a paucity of information on the biomechanical results of this type of arthroplasty compared with those of contemporary total hip arthroplasty.
Methods: Using standardized radiographs, we measured and compared the biomechanical parameters that affect the hip joint reactive forces in fifty hips that had a metal-metal surface replacement with those parameters in forty hips that had a contemporary cementless total hip replacement performed during the same time-period by the same surgeon.
Results: On the average, the arthritic hips that were treated with metal-metal surface replacement had had a more valgus preoperative neck-shaft angle and less horizontal femoral offset than the normal, contralateral hips (p = 0.0003). After both the metal-metal surface replacements and the cementless total hip replacements, the hip center of rotation was medialized by approximately 6 mm. Both procedures were associated with an average increase in limb length of approximately 3 or 4 mm. After the metal-metal surface replacements, the horizontal femoral offset was essentially equal to the preoperative value, but both values averaged about 8 mm less than those on the normal, contralateral side (p < 0.00001). In the hips with a conventional total hip replacement, the horizontal femoral offset increased an average of 9.5 mm compared with the preoperative value and was an average of 5 mm more than that for the normal, contralateral hip (p = 0.001).
Conclusions: The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing depend on the preoperative anatomy of the proximal part of the femur. Limb lengthening of 1 cm can be achieved, but horizontal femoral offset is essentially unchanged by hip resurfacing. Horizontal femoral offset can be increased reliably with a contemporary total hip replacement. Arthritic hips of limbs that are more than 1 cm shorter than the contralateral limb or that have a comparatively low horizontal femoral offset may be better served by a contemporary total hip replacement. These biomechanical limitations should be considered in the selection of hips for resurfacing.
Level of evidence: Therapeutic study, Level III-1 (case-control study). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Similar articles
-
Are there differences in Hip Biomechanics after hybrid and cementless resurfacing arthroplasty?Acta Orthop Belg. 2016 Aug;82(3):516-521. Acta Orthop Belg. 2016. PMID: 29119892
-
Relation between lower extremity alignment and proximal femur anatomy. Parameters during total hip arthroplasty.Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013 Sep;99(5):493-500. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.02.006. Epub 2013 Jun 24. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013. PMID: 23806349
-
Optimizing patient selection and outcomes with total hip resurfacing.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec;441:200-4. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000192354.76792.bb. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005. PMID: 16331003
-
Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty.Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 May;95(3):210-9. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.03.010. Epub 2009 May 6. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009. PMID: 19423418 Review.
-
Resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty - review of comparative clinical and basic science studies.Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67(2):120-7. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009. PMID: 19583538 Review.
Cited by
-
Surface replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jan;467(1):94-100. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0478-y. Epub 2008 Sep 16. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009. PMID: 18797977 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
[Biomechanical aspects of the implant fixation and kinematics of hip resurfacing systems].Orthopade. 2008 Jul;37(7):634-43. doi: 10.1007/s00132-008-1285-6. Orthopade. 2008. PMID: 18548228 Review. German.
-
What Are the Benefits of Hip Resurfacing in Appropriate Patients? A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.HSS J. 2020 Dec;16(Suppl 2):316-326. doi: 10.1007/s11420-019-09729-4. Epub 2019 Dec 4. HSS J. 2020. PMID: 33380963 Free PMC article.
-
High cup angle and microseparation increase the wear of hip surface replacements.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Sep;467(9):2259-65. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-0830-x. Epub 2009 Apr 11. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009. PMID: 19363640 Free PMC article.
-
Who Restores Hip Biomechanics More Effectively after a Femoral Neck Fracture? Comparison of Total Hip Arthroplasties Performed by Either Hip Surgeons or Orthopaedic Residents.Arthroplast Today. 2020 Aug 29;6(4):736-741. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.027. eCollection 2020 Dec. Arthroplast Today. 2020. PMID: 32923560 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials