Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 10/2016

01-10-2016 | CORR Insights

CORR Insights®: Are Females at Greater Risk for Revision Surgery After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty With the Articular Surface Replacement Prosthesis?

Author: Alexander Jaime Grübl, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Excerpt

There is conflicting evidence regarding whether the risk of complications differs by gender after metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty [2]. MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty decreases volumetric wear, increases stability due to larger femoral head sizes, and better preserves bone stock on the femoral side when compared to conventional THA with metal-on-polyethylene bearings. However, MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasties are prone to adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR), pseudotumour formation, osteolysis, and high metal ion levels. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Grübl A, Marker M, Brodner W, Giurea A, Heinze G, Meisinger V. Long-term follow-up of metal-on-metal total hip replacement. J Orthop Res. 2007;25:841–848.CrossRefPubMed Grübl A, Marker M, Brodner W, Giurea A, Heinze G, Meisinger V. Long-term follow-up of metal-on-metal total hip replacement. J Orthop Res. 2007;25:841–848.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Haughom BD, Erickson BJ, Hellman MD, Jacobs JJ. Do complication rates differ by gender after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:2521–2529.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Haughom BD, Erickson BJ, Hellman MD, Jacobs JJ. Do complication rates differ by gender after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:2521–2529.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Jameson SS, Baker PN, Mason J, Porter ML, Deehan DJ, Reed MR. Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: A retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:746–754.CrossRefPubMed Jameson SS, Baker PN, Mason J, Porter ML, Deehan DJ, Reed MR. Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: A retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:746–754.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Prosser GH, Yates PH, Wood DJ, Graves SE, de Steiger RN, Miller LN. Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: Evaluation of risk factors for early revision. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:66–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Prosser GH, Yates PH, Wood DJ, Graves SE, de Steiger RN, Miller LN. Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: Evaluation of risk factors for early revision. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:66–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Howard PW, Blom AW, Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet. 2012;380:1759–1766.CrossRefPubMed Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Howard PW, Blom AW, Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet. 2012;380:1759–1766.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Tibrewal S, Sabah S, Henckel J, Hart A The effect of a manufacturer recall on the threshold to revise a metal-on-metal hip. Int Orthop. 2014;38:2017–2020.CrossRefPubMed Tibrewal S, Sabah S, Henckel J, Hart A The effect of a manufacturer recall on the threshold to revise a metal-on-metal hip. Int Orthop. 2014;38:2017–2020.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
CORR Insights®: Are Females at Greater Risk for Revision Surgery After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty With the Articular Surface Replacement Prosthesis?
Author
Alexander Jaime Grübl, MD
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4913-1

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 10/2016 Go to the issue