Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 10 | Pages 639 - 649
19 Oct 2021
Bergiers S Hothi H Henckel J Di Laura A Belzunce M Skinner J Hart A

Aims. Acetabular edge-loading was a cause of increased wear rates in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties, ultimately contributing to their failure. Although such wear patterns have been regularly reported in retrieval analyses, this study aimed to determine their in vivo location and investigate their relationship with acetabular component positioning. Methods. 3D CT imaging was combined with a recently validated method of mapping bearing surface wear in retrieved hip implants. The asymmetrical stabilizing fins of Birmingham hip replacements (BHRs) allowed the co-registration of their acetabular wear maps and their computational models, segmented from CT scans. The in vivo location of edge-wear was measured within a standardized coordinate system, defined using the anterior pelvic plane. Results. Edge-wear was found predominantly along the superior acetabular edge in all cases, while its median location was 8° (interquartile range (IQR) -59° to 25°) within the anterosuperior quadrant. The deepest point of these scars had a median location of 16° (IQR -58° to 26°), which was statistically comparable to their centres (p = 0.496). Edge-wear was in closer proximity to the superior apex of the cups with greater angles of acetabular inclination, while a greater degree of anteversion influenced a more anteriorly centred scar. Conclusion. The anterosuperior location of edge-wear was comparable to the degradation patterns observed in acetabular cartilage, supporting previous findings that hip joint forces are directed anteriorly during a greater portion of walking gait. The further application of this novel method could improve the current definition of optimal and safe acetabular component positioning. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(10):639–649


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 1 | Pages 22 - 30
1 Jan 2021
Clement ND Gaston P Bell A Simpson P Macpherson G Hamilton DF Patton JT

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to compare the hip-specific functional outcome of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Secondary aims were to compare general health improvement, patient satisfaction, and radiological component position and restoration of leg length between rTHA and mTHA.

Methods

A total of 40 patients undergoing rTHA were propensity score matched to 80 patients undergoing mTHA for OA. Patients were matched for age, sex, and preoperative function. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were collected pre- and postoperatively (mean 10 months (SD 2.2) in rTHA group and 12 months (SD 0.3) in mTHA group). In addition, patient satisfaction was collected postoperatively. Component accuracy was assessed using Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones, and restoration of leg length were assessed radiologically.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 2 | Pages 113 - 122
1 Feb 2017
Scholes SC Hunt BJ Richardson VM Langton DJ Smith E Joyce TJ

Objectives

The high revision rates of the DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) and the DePuy ASR XL (the total hip arthroplasty (THA) version) have led to questions over the viability of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip joints. Some designs of MoM hip joint do, however, have reasonable mid-term performance when implanted in appropriate patients. Investigations into the reasons for implant failure are important to offer help with the choice of implants and direction for future implant designs. One way to assess the performance of explanted hip prostheses is to measure the wear (in terms of material loss) on the joint surfaces.

Methods

In this study, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the wear on five failed cementless Biomet Magnum/ReCap/ Taperloc large head MoM THAs, along with one Biomet ReCap resurfacing joint. Surface roughness measurements were also taken. The reason for revision of these implants was pain and/or adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) and/or elevated blood metal ion levels.