Cargando…

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

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 e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marker, David R, Zywiel, Michael G, Johnson, Aaron J, Seyler, Thorsten M, Mont, Michael A
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958984/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-227
_version_ 1782188412339486720
author Marker, David R
Zywiel, Michael G
Johnson, Aaron J
Seyler, Thorsten M
Mont, Michael A
author_facet Marker, David R
Zywiel, Michael G
Johnson, Aaron J
Seyler, Thorsten M
Mont, Michael A
author_sort Marker, David R
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Text
id pubmed-2958984
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29589842010-10-22 Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure? Marker, David R Zywiel, Michael G Johnson, Aaron J Seyler, Thorsten M Mont, Michael A BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2010-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC2958984/ /pubmed/20920316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-227 Text en Copyright ©2010 Marker et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Marker, David R
Zywiel, Michael G
Johnson, Aaron J
Seyler, Thorsten M
Mont, Michael A
Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?
title Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?
title_full Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?
title_fullStr Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?
title_full_unstemmed Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?
title_short Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?
title_sort are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958984/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-227
work_keys_str_mv AT markerdavidr arecomponentpositioningandprosthesissizeassociatedwithhipresurfacingfailure
AT zywielmichaelg arecomponentpositioningandprosthesissizeassociatedwithhipresurfacingfailure
AT johnsonaaronj arecomponentpositioningandprosthesissizeassociatedwithhipresurfacingfailure
AT seylerthorstenm arecomponentpositioningandprosthesissizeassociatedwithhipresurfacingfailure
AT montmichaela arecomponentpositioningandprosthesissizeassociatedwithhipresurfacingfailure