|
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 87-B, Issue 2,
163-166.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B2.15151 Copyright © 2005 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery Comparison of offset in Birmingham hip resurfacing and hybrid total hip arthroplastyJ. M. Loughead, MBBS, MRCS, Clinical Fellow in Orthopaedics; D. Chesney, MD, FRCS, Specialist Registrar in Orthopaedics; J. P. Holland, FRCS (Orth), Consultant in Trauma and Orthopaedics; and A. W. McCaskie, MD, FRCS (Orth), ProfessorDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Freeman Hospital, High Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK. Correspondence should be sent to Mr J. M. Loughead at 92 Warkworth Woods, Great Park, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 5RB, UK; e-mail: jonathan{at}loughead.fsworld.co.uk
Hip resurfacing is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The possible benefits include more accurate restoration of leg length, femoral offset and femoral anteversion than occurs after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared anteroposterior radiographs from 26 patients who had undergone hybrid THA (uncemented cup/cemented stem), with 28 who had undergone Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty (BHR). We measured the femoral offset, femoral length, acetabular offset and acetabular height with reference to the normal contralateral hip. The data were analysed by paired t-tests. There was a significant reduction in femoral offset (p = 0.0004) and increase in length (p = 0.001) in the BHR group. In the THA group, there was a significant reduction in acetabular offset (p = 0.0003), but femoral offset and overall hip length were restored accurately. We conclude that hip resurfacing does not restore hip mechanics as accurately as THA. This article has been cited by other articles:
eLetters:Read all eLetters
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||



