Large bearing surfaces are appealing in total hip arthroplasty (THA) as they may help create a greater range of impingement free motion and reduce the risk of dislocation. However, attempts to achieve this with a metal bearing surface have been blighted by adverse reactions to metal debris. Ceramic bearings have a good long-term track record in more conventional head sizes, and manufacturing techniques now permit the use of larger ceramic bearing surfaces using monoblock uncemented acetabular components. In this study, we are reviewing the early results of the Maxera® acetabular component (Zimmer, Indiana) at our institution. All data was collected prospectively. Maxera® acetabular component is a Titanium (Ti) shell with plasma sprayed Ti for the osteointegrative surface. Delta ceramic liner is inserted & locked into the cup shell by the manufacturer (non-modular). With the Maxera cup system, the bearing diameter is dictated by the acetabular component size. Acetabular components (AC) of 46 and 48 mm have a bearing diameter (BD) of 36 mm, AC of 50 and 52 mm: have a 40 mm BD, AC of 54 and 56 mm: have a BD of 44 mm and AC of 58–64: have a 48mm BD. Delta ceramic femoral head size of 44 and 48 mm have a modular Ti sleeve between the head and femoral stem trunnion. Femoral head sizes of 36 and 40 mm have no Ti sleeve. All THA had an uncemented femoral stem. Implants were inserted with a posterior approach. Patients were reviewed at 6 weeks, 6 months and then annually with radiographs. Clinical function was evaluated using WOMAC and UCLA scores along with joint perception questionnaires. Five hundred components have been implanted in 442 patients (250 women, 192 men) with a mean age of 55, (min 17, max 80) and a mean BMI of 26.9 (min 17.8, max 51). The mean acetabular size was 54 (min 46, max 64), leading to a mean femoral head size of 44. At a minimum of two years follow-up (mean 3.8 years): 5 patients have been revised, 4 secondary to undetected intraoperative fracture of the femur and only one due to early displacement of a Maxera® cup (0.2%). Five patients reported a mild squeaking; two reported clicking and one patient presented with a symptomatic heterotopic ossification. The WOMAC score improved significantly post-operatively, (57.4 compared to 4.4 post-operatively, p<0.001). The mean post-operative UCLA score was 6.9. Sixty percent (60.6%) of patients rated their joint perception as either “natural” or “artificial without limitation”. two patients (0.4%) suffered a dislocation after high velocity trauma without recurrence after closed reduction. No ceramic component fracture was recorded. This prospective study shows that this monoblock acetabular component provides an easy implantation with minimal complications. The ceramic bearing surface provides good clinical function and joint perception. Bearing surfaces of this design may provide an alternative to large head metal on metal (MoM) implants without the side effects of metal debris/ions.
The present study was performed on 30 mature white rabbits (male range, 2800–3500 gr). The right knees were accepted as study and left knees as control group. Group 1 was received intraarticular 0.1ml sodium hyaluronate treatment, rabbits in group 2 were received 0.1 ml Serum Physiologique once a week for three weeks. Biopsy was taken from both knees at the 3rd and 6th week. Histopathological evaluation was performed by a pathologist who is blind to study according to modified Mankin score.
The purpose of this study was to compare the post operative ROM of patients randomised between SRA and 28mm THA. Restoration of normal ROM has been proposed as an advantage of hip resurfacing (SRA) over THA and is due to the use of larger diameter femoral heads. However, the head-neck diameter ratio, which is an important factor governing ROM, would in theory allow more ROM with THA (28mm head/14mm neck = ratio 2:1) versus SRA (approximate ratio 1.3–2.0:1). Patients were randomised between SRA and THA. Osseous landmarks were identified with a marker pen. Both ASIS served as the reference line for the pelvis position. Digital photographs of hip motion were taken and a blinded rater (with respect to the side and type of surgery) performed range of motion testing on the operated and normal side. Pre-study validation of ROM measurement method with a software program revealed high intra and inter observer reliability. Sixty SRA and sixty-two THA were evaluated at minimum follow-up of twelve months. Preoperative ROM and demographic data were similar for both groups. No significant differences (p>
0.05) were found in the total arc of motion (SRA=204.2°, THA=196.5°), arc of rotation (SRA=47.7°, THA=44.3°), flexion-extension arc (SRA=118.1, THA=120.1), abduction-adduction arc (SRA=43.1°, THA=42.9°). In theory, ROM should have been greater in THA. Fear of instability may have limited ROM recovery potential in THA. Since pre operative soft tissue contracture is an important factor influencing post operative ROM, the complete capsular release performed during SRA may have been an advantage of this technique.
The dramatic improvement in clinical function after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been well-documented. Gait studies, however, demonstrate abnormal gait pattern after THA. THA patients may complain of thigh pain, leg length inequality, instability and reduced range of motion. Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) has the benefit of restoring a more normal hip anatomy and biomechanics, which could improve clinical function and patient satisfaction after surgery. We compared the clinical function and patient satisfaction in a group of young patients randomized to receive SRA or THA. The results are presented and discussed. The dramatic improvement in clinical function after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been well-documented. However gait studies demonstrate abnormal gait patterns after THA, and patients may complain of thigh pain, leg length inequality, instability and reduced range of motion. Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) has the benefit of restoring a more normal hip anatomy and biomechanics, which could improve clinical function and patient satisfaction after surgery. All patients eligible for the study were randomised to receive uncemented metal-metal THA or a hybrid metal-metal SRA. Clinical data were prospectively collected pre-operatively and at three, six and twelve months post-operatively. WOMAC score, SF-36, Merle D’Aubigné, and other clinical data, along with patient satisfaction, were compared. One hundred and fifty patients were randomized. Both groups demonstrated a very high satisfaction rate. Although there was a tendency for the SRA group to participate in more demanding activities at six months post-operatively, no difference was found in clinical function scores. Two isolated dislocations occurred in the THA group and none in the SRA group. There were no other significant complications in either group. The few short-term clinical data reported in the literature for new generation SRA implants demonstrate an excellent outcome comparable to THA. Despite enthusiasm about total hip resurfacing, no direct prospective comparative study with THA has been published in the literature. This study confirms the safety and benefits of metal-metal SRA of the hip in the early post-operative period. Funding: This research project was funded by Zimmer, Warsaw