Femoral side-only revision options for the Birmingham resurfacing arthroplasty
| Autor: | Mun Khin Chan, Andrew M Suchowersky, Michelle Caudwell, Andrew Ashton |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Reoperation medicine.medical_specialty medicine.medical_treatment Operative Time Blood Loss Surgical Periprosthetic Context (language use) Prosthesis Design 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Blood loss medicine Arthroplasty replacement Humans Femur Arthroplasty Replacement Range of Motion Articular business.industry Australia Acetabulum General Medicine Resurfacing arthroplasty Middle Aged Hip resurfacing Surgery Prosthesis Failure Femoral prosthesis 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis 030211 gastroenterology & hepatology Hip Joint Implant Periprosthetic Fractures business |
| Zdroj: | ANZ journal of surgeryReferences. 89(9) |
| ISSN: | 1445-2197 |
| Popis: | Background The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) system (Smith and Nephew) was developed as an alternative to conventional total joint replacement for younger, more active patients. Among other complications exists the risk for femoral component failure. The only marketed revision option for such a complication involves exchange of all components for a total replacement arthroplasty. This presents as a considerable and potentially unnecessary operative burden where revision of only the femoral prosthesis would suffice. We have analysed revision options for BHR in the context of periprosthetic femoral fractures with a stable acetabular component. Methods Technical details of dual mobility hip systems available in Australia were collated and analysed to assess for potential 'off label' use with an existing BHR acetabular component. These data were then compared with the custom-made Smith and Nephew dual mobility implant with respect to clearance and sizing. Results Two dual mobility articulation modalities from two companies were identified as appropriate for potential usage with four products analysed in detail. These two demonstrated acceptable sizing and clearance measurements. Conclusion Comparison between readily available dual mobility prostheses with custom-made implants showed off label dual mobility prosthetic use to be a viable alternative for femoral-only revisions with in situ BHR. Single component revision has several advantages which include: a less complex surgical procedure, shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and the expectation of resultant lower morbidity. Furthermore, this less complex revision surgery should give comparable results to that of primary total hip arthroplasty. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text