EARLY FAILURE MODALITIES IN HIP RESURFACING

S Cutts; A Datta; K Ayoub; H Rhaman; T Lawrence

doi:10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_I.0860080d

Current issue

EARLY FAILURE MODALITIES IN HIP RESURFACING

S Cutts
A Datta
K Ayoub
H Rhaman
T Lawrence

EARLY FAILURE MODALITIES IN HIP RESURFACING

Cutts S, Datta A, Ayoub K, Rhaman H, Lawrence T. EARLY FAILURE MODALITIES IN HIP RESURFACING. Orthop Procs. 2004;86-B(SUPP_I):80-80. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_I.0860080d

Cutts, S, et al. “EARLY FAILURE MODALITIES IN HIP RESURFACING.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 86-B, no. SUPP_I, 2004, pp. 80-80., https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_I.0860080d

Cutts, S., Datta, A., Ayoub, K., Rhaman, H., & Lawrence, T. (2004). EARLY FAILURE MODALITIES IN HIP RESURFACING. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 86-B(SUPP_I), 80-80. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_I.0860080d

Cutts, S., Datta, A., Ayoub, K., Rhaman, H. and Lawrence, T. (2004) “EARLY FAILURE MODALITIES IN HIP RESURFACING.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 86-B(SUPP_I), pp. 80-80. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_I.0860080d

Cutts, S, A Datta, K Ayoub, H Rhaman, and T Lawrence. “EARLY FAILURE MODALITIES IN HIP RESURFACING.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 86-B, no. SUPP_I (2004): 80-80. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_I.0860080d

Cutts S, Datta A, Ayoub K, Rhaman H, Lawrence T. EARLY FAILURE MODALITIES IN HIP RESURFACING. Orthop Procs. 2004 Jan 1;86-B(SUPP_I):80-80. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_I.0860080d

Copy to clipboard

Mendeley

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in the concept of hip resurfacing. Since 1996, we have treated 60 patients (65 hips) with the Corin Hip Resurfacing.

Of the 65 primary procedures, 13 have now required revision. 1 case was complicated by early deep infection and 12 (17%) for mechanical failure. 5 of these patients were male and 8 female. Mean time to failure was 11 months (range 48 hours to 53 months). 8 out of the 12 mechanical failures required revision within 6 months of the primary procedure. Mean age of the revision patients was 57 years (range 22 – 71 years).

The most common failure modality (6 cases) was fractured neck of femur. 4 out of 6 of these cases occurred in women over 60 years of age. All of these fractures occurred without a specific history of trauma. Since only 12 patients were women over 60, 1 in 3 women over 60 years of age in our series were complicated by fractured neck of femur.

In 4 cases, the indication for revision was acetabular loosening. One patient had ongoing pain of unknown aetiology and one developed progressive avascular necorsis of the femoral head with subsequent collapse.

Of the 12 cases requiring revision for mechanical failure, two cases required revision of the femoral component only and this was performed using the stemmed modular CTI prosthesis produced by Corin for this purpose. Three cases required revision of the socket only and the others were revised to total joint replacement. The one case of early deep infection was treated by two stage revision. There were no dislocations in our series and there was no evidence of metallosis.

Not for the first time in the history of orthopaedics, a DGH has been unable to repeat the excellent results reported by a specialist centre with a new technique. However, analysis of the above data has led us to believe that our results may be much improved by careful patient selection. It is also apparent that formal revision strategies need to be developed for hips resurfacing.

Theses abstracts were prepared by Mr Peter Kay. Correspondence should be address to him at The Hip Centre, Wrightington Hospital, Appley Bridge, Wigan, Lancashire WN6 9EP.