Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 90-B, Issue 3, 319-323.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B3.18803  
Copyright © 2008 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow FrenchSpanishGermanItalianRomanianPolishRussianCzechGreek
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moonot, P.
Right arrow Articles by Field, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moonot, P.
Right arrow Articles by Field, R. E.

Birmingham hip resurfacing

IS ACETABULAR BONE CONSERVED?

P. Moonot, MRCS, Clinical Research Fellow1; P. J. Singh, FRCS, Specialist Registrar1; M. D. Cronin, MRCS, Specialist Registrar1; Y. E. Kalairajah, FRCS(Orth), Locum Orthopaedic Consultant1; T. G. Kavanagh, FRCS(Orth), Orthopaedic Consultant1; and R. E. Field, PhD, FRCS(Orth), Orthopaedic Consultant and Director of Research1

1 South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Denbies Wing, Dorking Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 7EG, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr R. Field; e-mail: richardefield{at}aol.com

Hip resurfacing is a bone-conserving procedure with respect to proximal femoral resection, but there is debate in the literature as to whether the same holds true for the acetabulum. We have investigated whether the Birmingham hip resurfacing conserves acetabular bone.

Between 1998 and 2005, 500 Birmingham hip resurfacings were performed by two surgeons. Between 1996 and 2005 they undertook 700 primary hip replacements, with an uncemented acetabular component. These patients formed the clinical material to compare acetabular component sizing. The Birmingham hip resurfacing group comprised 350 hips in men and 150 hips in women. The uncemented total hip replacement group comprised 236 hips in men and 464 hips in women. Age- and gender-matched analysis of a cohort of patients for the sizes of the acetabular components required for the two types of replacement was also undertaken. Additionally, an analysis of the sizes of the components used by each surgeon was performed.

For age-matched women, the mean outside diameter of the Birmingham hip resurfacing acetabular components was 2.03 mm less than that of the acetabular components in the uncemented total hip replacements (p < 0.0001). In similarly matched men there was no significant difference (p = 0.77). A significant difference was also found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for Birmingham hip resurfacing for both men (p = 0.0015) and women (p = 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for uncemented total hip replacement in either men or women (p = 0.06 and p = 0.14, respectively). This suggests that variations in acetabular preparation also influence acetabular component size in hip resurfacing.




eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Acetabular component size in resurfacing arthroplasty
Jonathan M Loughead, et al.
J Bone Joint Surg Br Online, 15 Apr 2008 [Full text]

(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General