Outcomes after revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
case_series · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 24997652.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.036.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
We report the results of 58 hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRA) revised by a single surgeon with an average of 5.2±2.6 years follow-up. The four most common causes for revision were acetabular component loosening, femoral neck fracture, femoral component loosening, and adverse wear related failure (AWRF). In 95% of cases (55/58), the revision bearing was a large metal-on-metal type including all seven AWRF cases; three cases were revised to ceramic-on-polyethylene. There were two repeat revisions due to acetabular component loosening. Revision of AWRF had an excellent outcome using limited debridement and a stable large metal bearing placed in the correct position. The only problematic group was the one revised for acetabular loosening in which 2/16 (6%) required repeat revision for failure of acetabular fixation.
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
- Hip Prosthesis
- Metal-on-Metal Joint Prostheses
- Prosthesis Failure
Anatomy
- hip