Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Joint Replacement Instrumentation Limited (JRI) Ad
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 90-B, Issue 9, 1158-1163.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B9.19891  
Copyright © 2008 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Further opinion
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 HighWire
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by De Haan, R.
Right arrow Articles by De Smet, K. A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by De Haan, R.
Right arrow Articles by De Smet, K. A.

Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip

THE INFLUENCE OF MALPOSITIONING OF THE COMPONENTS

R. De Haan, MD, Resident in Orthopaedic Surgery1; P. A. Campbell, PhD, Research Scientist2; E. P. Su, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon3; and K. A. De Smet, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon4

1 University Hospital Brussels, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
2 J. Vernon Luck Snr MD, Orthopaedic Research Centre, Orthopaedic Hospital/University of California Los Angeles, 2400 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California 90007, USA.
3 Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, New York 10021, USA.
4 ANCA Medical Centre, Krijgslaan 181, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr K. De Smet; e-mail: dr.desmet{at}heup.be

We have reviewed 42 patients who had revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing procedures, mostly because of problems with the acetabular component. The revisions were carried out a mean of 26.2 months (1 to 76) after the initial operation and most of the patients (30) were female.

Malpositioning of the acetabular component resulted in 27 revisions, mostly because of excessive abduction (mean 69.9°; 56° to 98°) or insufficient or excessive anteversion. Seven patients had more than one reason for revision. The mean increase in the diameter of the component was 1.8 mm (0 to 4) when exchange was needed.

Malpositioning of the components was associated with metallosis and a high level of serum ions. The results of revision of the femoral component to a component with a modular head were excellent, but four patients had dislocation after revision and four required a further revision.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
R. De Haan, C. Pattyn, H. S. Gill, D. W. Murray, P. A. Campbell, and K. De Smet
Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement
J Bone Joint Surg Br, October 1, 2008; 90-B(10): 1291 - 1297.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Should we always revise with malpositioning?
Shiraz A Sabah, et al.
J Bone Joint Surg Br Online, 16 Oct 2008 [Full text]
Authors' reply:
KOEN A DE SMET, et al.
J Bone Joint Surg Br Online, 13 Nov 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