Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?

dc.contributor.author

Marker, David R

dc.contributor.author

Zywiel, Michael G

dc.contributor.author

Johnson, Aaron J

dc.contributor.author

Seyler, Thorsten M

dc.contributor.author

Mont, Michael A

dc.coverage.spatial

England

dc.date.accessioned

2015-08-12T18:12:13Z

dc.date.accessioned

2015-08-18T15:51:34Z

dc.date.issued

2010-10-02

dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that there is a learning curve for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. The purpose of this study was to assess whether implant positioning changed with surgeon experience and whether positioning and component sizing were associated with implant longevity. METHODS: We evaluated the first 361 consecutive hip resurfacings performed by a single surgeon, which had a mean follow-up of 59 months (range, 28 to 87 months). Pre and post-operative radiographs were assessed to determine the inclination of the acetabular component, as well as the sagittal and coronal femoral stem-neck angles. Changes in the precision of component placement were determined by assessing changes in the standard deviation of each measurement using variance ratio and linear regression analysis. Additionally, the cup and stem-shaft angles as well as component sizes were compared between the 31 hips that failed over the follow-up period and the surviving components to assess for any differences that might have been associated with an increased risk for failure. RESULTS: Surgeon experience was correlated with improved precision of the antero-posterior and lateral positioning of the femoral component. However, femoral and acetabular radiographic implant positioning angles were not different between the surviving hips and failures. The failures had smaller mean femoral component diameters as compared to the non-failure group (44 versus 47 millimeters). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there may be differences in implant positioning in early versus late learning curve procedures, but that in the absence of recognized risk factors such as intra-operative notching of the femoral neck and cup inclination in excess of 50 degrees, component positioning does not appear to be associated with failure. Nevertheless, surgeons should exercise caution in operating patients with small femoral necks, especially when they are early in the learning curve.

dc.identifier

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920316

dc.identifier

1471-2474-11-227

dc.identifier.eissn

1471-2474

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/10410

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

dc.relation.ispartof

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1186/1471-2474-11-227

dc.relation.replaces

http://hdl.handle.net/10161/10375

dc.relation.replaces

10161/10375

dc.subject

Adolescent

dc.subject

Adult

dc.subject

Aged

dc.subject

Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip

dc.subject

Equipment Failure Analysis

dc.subject

Female

dc.subject

Hip Prosthesis

dc.subject

Humans

dc.subject

Male

dc.subject

Middle Aged

dc.subject

Prosthesis Failure

dc.subject

Retrospective Studies

dc.subject

Young Adult

dc.title

Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Seyler, Thorsten M|0000-0003-1157-132X

pubs.author-url

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920316

pubs.begin-page

227

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

Orthopaedics

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.publication-status

Published online

pubs.volume

11

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Marker et al_Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure.pdf
Size:
364.88 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version