The influence of the size of the component on the outcome of resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a review of the literature
- PMID: 20357319
- DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B4.22967
The influence of the size of the component on the outcome of resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a review of the literature
Abstract
The survivorship of contemporary resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip using metal-on-metal bearings is better than that of first generation designs, but short-term failures still occur. The most common reasons for failure are fracture of the femoral neck, loosening of the component, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, reaction to metal debris and malpositioning of the component. In 2008 the Australian National Joint Registry reported an inverse relationship between the size of the head component and the risk of revision in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Hips with a femoral component size of </= 44 mm have a fivefold increased risk of revision than those with femoral components of >/= 55 mm irrespective of gender. We have reviewed the literature to explore this observation and to identify possible reasons including the design of the implant, loading of the femoral neck, the orientation of the component, the production of wear debris and the effects of metal ions, penetration of cement and vascularity of the femoral head. Our conclusion is that although multifactorial, the most important contributors to failure in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip are likely to be the design and geometry of the component and the orientation of the acetabular component.
Similar articles
-
Metal-on-metal surface replacement: a triumph of hope over reason: affirms.Orthopedics. 2011 Sep 9;34(9):e439-41. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20110714-21. Orthopedics. 2011. PMID: 21902124 Review.
-
Femoral head blood flow during hip resurfacing.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Mar;456:148-52. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000238865.77109.af. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007. PMID: 17016225
-
Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter.Acta Orthop. 2008 Dec;79(6):748-54. doi: 10.1080/17453670810016803. Acta Orthop. 2008. PMID: 19085490
-
Femoral head to neck offset after hip resurfacing is critical for range of motion.Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2012 Feb;27(2):165-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.08.013. Epub 2011 Sep 16. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2012. PMID: 21925779
-
Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a skeptic's view.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Dec;465:86-91. doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181468911. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007. PMID: 17632416 Review.
Cited by
-
Do ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing differ from those in metal-on-metal THA at long-term followup?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Sep;471(9):2964-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2981-z. Epub 2013 Apr 10. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013. PMID: 23572350 Free PMC article.
-
[Approach to painful hip resurfacing].Orthopade. 2011 Jun;40(6):481-90. doi: 10.1007/s00132-011-1757-y. Orthopade. 2011. PMID: 21614600 German.
-
Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: correlation between clinical and radiological assessment, metal ions and ultrasound findings.Musculoskelet Surg. 2015 Apr;99(1):45-53. doi: 10.1007/s12306-014-0344-x. Epub 2014 Dec 24. Musculoskelet Surg. 2015. PMID: 25537299
-
Are There Long-term Benefits to Cementing the Metaphyseal Stem in Hip Resurfacing?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Oct;473(10):3197-203. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4402-y. Epub 2015 Jun 23. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015. PMID: 26100255 Free PMC article.
-
The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.Int Orthop. 2015 Oct;39(10):2031-6. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2692-z. Epub 2015 Feb 24. Int Orthop. 2015. PMID: 25708400 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical