header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 91-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 25 - 25
1 Mar 2009
Spencer R Bishay M Foguet P Griffin D Krikler S Nelson R Norton M Prakash U Pring D
Full Access

Introduction: Hip resurfacing has become re-established in recent years as a viable option in younger, active individuals. The results of a multi-centre evaluation of the Cormet resurfacing device are presented.

Materials and Methods: Data has been entered from 1997 onwards from 5 centres, patients being selected as suitable by 8 individual surgeons. Pre and intraoperative details recorded including indications, patient details, implant used, Harris Hip Score (HHS) and surgical approach.

Results: A total of 781 procedures in 676 patients have been recorded (54% posterior approach, 40% antero-lateral, 6% Ganz approach). The mean follow-up is 2.5 years (0.1–9.7 yrs) and the mean postoperative HHS is 85.9 (range 25–100). The mean age at surgery was 54.2 years. 60% of implantations were on male patients. The principal diagnosis was; OA 87%, RA 5%, AVN, post-traumatic OA and DDH 2% each, Perthes 1% and the remainder 1%. It is thought likely that many cases of OA had many of the above-named pathologies as a precursor. The mean maximum flexion postoperatively was 98.6 degrees. Uncemented heads (a recent innovation) were used in 7%. Kaplan-Meier survivorship is 93% at 9 years. In the OA subgroup 3.3% have been revised, approximately equal numbers for femoral head collapse, dislocation and cup loosening, but the vast majority due to femoral neck fracture, which in turn was generally associated with the posterior approach.

Conclusions: The results of this cohort (which includes the learning period of the contributing surgeons) indicate highly satisfactory outcomes in terms of HHS and implant longevity. Sub-classification of cases into those presenting abnormal anatomy and those with ‘ordinary’ OA indicates better survivorship still in the latter group. The surgical challenge varies more with hip resurfacing than with standard hip arthroplasty and this should be considered when results of surgery are reviewed. The revision options are generally much simpler than after standard THR.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 531 - 531
1 Aug 2008
Spencer RF Bishay M Krikler S Prakash U Foguet P Griffin D Pring D Norton M Nelson R
Full Access

Introduction: Hip resurfacing has become re-established in recent years as a viable option in younger, active individuals. The results of a multi-centre evaluation of the Cormet resurfacing device are presented.

Methods: Data has been entered from 1997 onwards from 5 centres, patients being selected as suitable by 8 individual surgeons. Pre and intraoperative details recorded including indications, patient details, implant used, Harris Hip Score (HHS) and surgical approach.

Results: A total of 905 procedures in 782 patients have been recorded (52% posterior approach, 39% anterolateral 9% Ganz approach). The mean follow-up is 2.8 years (0.1–9.5 yrs) and the mean postoperative HHS is 86.1 (range 25–100). The mean age at surgery was 54.4 years. 61% of patients were male. The principal diagnosis was; OA 88.3%, RA 4.3%, AVN 2.1%, posttraumatic OA 1.1%, DDH 2.1%, Perthes 0.7% and the remainder 1.4%. It is thought likely that many cases of OA had many of the above-named pathologies as a precursor. The mean maximum flexion postoperatively was 98.7 degrees. Uncemented heads (a recent innovation) were used in 10%. Kaplan-Meier survivorship is 93% at 9 to 10 years. Survivorship in the OA subgroup was 96.7% with approximately equal numbers for femoral head collapse, dislocation and cup loosening, but the vast majority due to femoral neck fracture, which in turn was generally associated with the posterior approach.

Discussion: The results of this cohort (including all contributors’ learning curves) indicate highly satisfactory outcomes in terms of HHS and implant longevity. Subclassification of cases into those presenting abnormal anatomy and those with ‘ordinary’ OA indicates better survivorship still in the latter group. The surgical challenge varies more with hip resurfacing than with standard hip arthroplasty and this should be considered when results of surgery are reviewed. The revision options are generally much simpler than after standard THR.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 10 - 10
1 Mar 2008
Ahmad Y Bishay M Andrew G Pring D Krikler S
Full Access

We present an independent multi-centre follow-up of metal-metal resurfacing from district regional hospitals (DGHs) in a series of ‘young’ patients with implants from a single manufacturer.

Between November 1995 and November 2002, two hundred and thirteen primary total hip resurfacings were performed in six centres. Two hundred and ten patients were followed up with none lost to follow-up. The average age of the patient group was 52.9 years range (21.9–71.3 years). Of these 210 patients 119 were male and 91 were female. There were three bilaterals and five revisions recorded with a revision rate of 2.3% at seven years. The maximum duration of follow-up was 84 months, the minimum was 3 months and the mean follow-up was 43.5 months.

The average Harris Hip score at the latest follow-up review was 78.15 (range 23–100). The Kaplan-Meier Survivorship of Cormet was 95% at 7 years and a survivorship of 97.38% at three years. These results indicate that metal-metal resurfacing meets the NICE guidelines for suvivorship at the three year benchmark in DGHs with local patients and is on course to meet the 10 year benchmark despite the extremely demanding patient group.