Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-12-2011 | Original Paper

No clinical difference between large metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and 28-mm-head total hip arthroplasty?

Authors: Wierd P. Zijlstra, Inge van den Akker-Scheek, Mark J. M. Zee, Jos J. A. M. van Raay

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 12/2011

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to test the claim of greater range of motion (ROM) with large femoral head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

Methods

We compared 28-mm metal-on-polyethylene (MP) total hip arthroplasty with large femoral head metal-on-metal (MM) total hip arthroplasty in a randomised clinical trial. ROM one year postoperatively was determined in 50 patients. Mean head sizes were 28 mm (MP) and 48 mm (MM).

Results

After one year, the large head MM group showed greater improvement in internal rotation (14 degrees) than the 28 mm group (seven degrees).There were no significant differences in the absolute values of postoperative internal rotation, external rotation, flexion, extension, abduction and abduction.

Conclusions

Absolute postoperative range of motion did not differ between the two groups. The improvement in internal rotation was greater after large femoral head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. It is however questionable whether this difference is clinically relevant.

Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH, Humphrey SM, Blanchard CR (2004) Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don’t do. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:102–107PubMedCrossRef

Burroughs BR, Hallstrom B, Golladay GJ, Hoeffel D, Harris WH (2005) Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty 20(1):11–19PubMedCrossRef

Cinotti G, Lucioli N, Malagoli A, Calderoli C, Cassese F (2010) Do large femoral heads reduce the risks of impingement in total hip arthroplasty with optimal and non-optimal cup positioning? Int Orthop Feb 17 [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0954-3

Lavigne M, Ganapathi M, Mottard S, Girard J, Vendittoli PA (2010) Range of motion of large head total hip arthroplasty is greater than 28 mm total hip arthroplasty or hip resurfacing. Clin Biomech. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.11.001

Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, Pietrobron R (2006) Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Rel Res 21:1–9

Le Duff MJ, Wisk LE, Amstutz HC (2009) Range of motion after stemmed total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing: a clinical study. Bull NYU Hosp Joint Dis 67(2):177–181

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357(9263):1191–1194PubMedCrossRef

Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg 51A:737–755

Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27PubMed

10.

DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32PubMed

11.

Gosens T, Sluimer JC, Kester AD, van Langelaan EJ (2005) Femoral fit predicts radiologic changes, but not clinical results, in Mallory-Head total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 432:138–147PubMedCrossRef

12.

Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632PubMed

13.

Svenningsen S, Terjesen T, Auflem M, Berg V (1989) Hip motion related to age and sex. Acta Orthop Scand 60:97–100PubMedCrossRef

14.

Johnston RC, Smidt GL (1970) Hip motion measurements for selected activities of daily living. Clin Orthop Relat Res 72:205–215PubMed

15.

Dela Rosa MA, Silva M, Heisel C, Reich M, Schmalzried TP (2007) Range of motion after total hip resurfacing. Orthopedics 30:352–357PubMed

16.

Jolles BM, Bogoch ER (2006) Posterior versus lateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty in adults with osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 19;3:CD003828

17.

Lavigne M, Mottard S, Girard J, Vendittoli PA (2008) Range of motion after hip resurfacing and THA: a single-blind randomized clinical study. Proceedings of the 75th annual American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons meeting; March 5–9, 2008; San Francisco, California, p. 384–385

18.

D’Lima D, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, Walker RH, Colwell CW (2000) The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:315–321PubMed

19.

Chevillotte CJ, Ali MH, Trousdale RT, Pagnano MW (2009) Variability in hip range of motion on clinical examination. J Arthroplasty 24(5):693–697PubMedCrossRef

20.

Croft PR, Nahit ES, Macfarlane GJ, Silman AJ (1996) Interobserver reliability in measuring flexion, internal rotation and external rotation of the hip using a plurimeter. Ann Rheum Dis 55:320–323PubMedCrossRef

21.

Nussbaumer S, Leunig M, Glatthorn GJ, Stauffacher S, Gerber H, Maffiuletti NA (2010) Validity and test-retest reliability of manual goniometers for measuring passive hip range of motion in femoroacetabular impingement patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:194PubMedCrossRef

22.

Lombardi AV, Skeels MD, Berend KR, Adams JB, Franchi OJ (2010) Do large heads enhance stability and restore native anatomy in primary total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1605-0

23.

Mabilleau G, Kwon YM, Pandit H, Murray DW, Sabokbar A (2008) Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a review of periprosthetic biological reactions. Acta Orthop 79:734–747PubMedCrossRef

24.

Medley JB (2008) Tribology of bearing materials. In: Amstutz HC (ed) Hip resurfacing: principles, indications, technique and results. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 33–38

25.

Fisher J, Lennings L, Galvin A (2006) Wear of highly crosslinked polyethylene against cobalt chrome and ceramic femoral heads. In: Benazzo F, Falez F, Dietrich M (eds) Bioceramics and alternative bearings in joint arthroplasty. Steinkopff, Darmstadt, pp 185–188CrossRef

Title: No clinical difference between large metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and 28-mm-head total hip arthroplasty?
Authors: Wierd P. Zijlstra
Inge van den Akker-Scheek
Mark J. M. Zee
Jos J. A. M. van Raay
Publication date: 01-12-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 12/2011
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1233-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

No clinical difference between large metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and 28-mm-head total hip arthroplasty?

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2011

Comments on Shuzhen Li et al. “Systematic review of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty”

Outcome after pelvic sarcoma resection and reconstruction with a modular hemipelvic prostheses

The influence of cementing technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty on the initial stability of the femoral component

Symptomatic coracoclavicular joint: incidence, clinical significance and available management options

Biomechanical analysis of a transiliac internal fixator

Total hip replacement with an uncemented Wagner cone stem for patients with congenital hip dysplasia