+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Is patient selection important for hip resurfacing?



Is patient selection important for hip resurfacing?



Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 467(1): 56-65



The optimal implant option for hip arthroplasty in the young, active patient remains controversial. There has been renewed interest for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing due to improved design and manufacturing of implants, better materials, enhanced implant fixation, theoretical advantages over conventional total hip arthroplasty, and recent Food and Drug Administration approval of two devices. Recent studies indicate satisfactory short- and midterm clinical results (1- to 10-year followup) with low complication rates, but there is a learning curve associated with this procedure, a more extensive surgical approach is necessary, and long-term results have yet to be determined. Proper patient selection may help avoid complications and improve patient outcomes. Patient selection criteria in the literature appear based predominantly on theoretical considerations without any consensus on stratifying patient risk. The most commonly reported complications encountered with hip resurfacing include femoral neck fracture, acetabular component loosening, metal hypersensitivity, dislocation, and nerve injury. At the time of clinical evaluation, patient age; gender; diagnosis; bone density, quality, and morphology; activity level; leg lengths; renal function; and metal hypersensitivity are important factors when considering a patient for hip resurfacing. Based on our review, we believe the best candidates for hip resurfacing are men under age 65 with osteoarthritis and relatively normal bony morphology. Level V, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053996566

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 18941859

DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0558-z


Related references

Optimizing patient flow. Improve patient throughput and processes while delivering efficient, high-quality care. Healthcare Executive 19(6): 32 34, 2004

The effect of patient satisfaction with pharmacist consultation on medication adherence: an instrumental variable approach. Pharmacy Practice 6(4): 201-210, 2008

Hip resurfacing for the treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip. Orthopedics 31(12):, 2008

Biologic resurfacing of the arthritic glenohumeral joint: Historical review and current applications. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 16(5 Suppl): S248-S253, 2007

Sex as a determinant of relapse incidence and progressive course of multiple sclerosis. Brain 136(Pt 12): 3609-3617, 2013

Symptoms resembling temporomandibular joint disorder caused by a pleomorphic adenoma. Journal 79: D15, 2013

Ambulatory surgery means business. Aorn Journal 38(3): 470 472, 1983

The patient's role in patient safety and the importance of a dedicated vascular access team. Contributions to Nephrology 184: 234-250, 2015

Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer Single or double method for identification?. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 40(5 Suppl. ): 251P, 1999

Selection of an aminoglycoside antibiotic for administration to horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 17(1): 30-34, 1985

Permanent Cardiac Pacing in Octogenarians. American Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 4(6): 42-47, 1995

Patient selection in the Timpilo Study. Archives of Ophthalmology 111(10): 1313, 1993

The effect of coral morphology on shelter selection by coral reef fishes. Coral Reefs 31(2): 415-424, 2012

Who benefits and how does it work? Moderators and mediators of outcome in an effectiveness trial of a parenting intervention. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 53 39(4): 568-580, 2010

Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An interventional cardiology perspective. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery 1(2): 206-215, 2012