Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Large diameter metal on metal articulations. comparison of total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing arthroplasty|
de Steiger, R.
|Citation:||Journal of Arthroplasty, 2013; 28(4):650-653|
|Publisher:||Churchill Livingstone Inc Medical Publishers|
|Christopher M. Jack, William L. Walter, Andrew J. Shimmin, Kara Cashman, Richard N. de Steiger|
|Abstract:||The use of large diameter metal bearing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) increased in popularity in the last decade. More recent literature has highlighted the effect of head size in patient outcomes. Data was obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOA-NJRR) to evaluate the Birmingham (MoM) bearing surface when used with THA and HRA. There is no difference in the overall rate of revision between the THA and HRA but head size has a significant effect on revision rate. The data show that small diameter metal bearings in HRA (below 50mm) have a higher rate of revision than large diameter metal bearings in HRA (equal to and above 50mm) (P<.001). Conversely the large diameter metal bearings in THA have a higher rate of revision than the small diameter metal bearings in THA (P=.027). The revision rate for large diameter HRA compared to small diameter THA is not significantly different P=.670. We recommend caution when choosing either a large diameter (≥50mm) metal on metal THA or small diameter (<50mm) HRA.|
|Keywords:||metal on metal; failure; trunion; hip resurfacing|
|Rights:||© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.|
|Appears in Collections:||Public Health publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.