Clinical advantages with large diameter heads
Part of the
Ceramics in Orthopaedics
book series (CIO)
A larger femoral head with a last generation ceramic on ceramic or metal on metal coupling is an useful recent introduction in THR. Most of the clinical advantages reported with the use of hip resurfacing (increased stability, improved ROM and lower dislocation rate) can be reproduced with large diameter joints and a conventional femoral implant. Some concerns still remains on the potential ions release by metal on metal in the long term.
At the present time, not all patients in our practise receive large diameter THR. Restriction of the use of these devices is mostly influenced by the high cost of these components. It is possible that, in the future, large diameter, either metal on metal or ceramic on ceramic, will completely replace the conventional 28mm THR.
KeywordsFemoral Head Large Diameter Femoral Neck Fracture Acetabular Component Metal Coupling
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Phillips C, Barrett J, Losina E, et al: Incidence Rates of Dislocation, Pulmonary Embolism, and Deep Infection During the first six months after Elective Total Hip Replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 85-A:20–26, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Beaule P, Schmalzried T, Udomkiat P, Amstutz H: Jumbo Femoral Head for the Treatment of Recurrent Dislocation Following Total Hip Replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 84-A:256–263, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM: Relationship of Femoral Head and Acetabular Size to the Prevalence of Dislocation. Clin.Orthop. 355:163–170, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Lima DD, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, Walker RH, Colwell CW Jr. The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am,; 82: 315–21, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Barrack RL, Butler RA, Laster DR, Andrews P. Stem design and dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical results and computer modeling. J Arthoplasty, 16(8 Suppl 1):8–12, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grecula MJ, Grigoris P, Schmalzried TP, Dorey F, Campbell PA, Endoprostheses for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. A comparison of four models in young patients. Int Orthop. 19(3):137–43, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedlundh U, Ahnfelt L, Hybbinette CH, Wallinder L, Weckstrom J, Fredin H. Dislocations and the femoral head size in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 333:226–33, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amstutz, H.C. Kody, MH: Dislocation and Subluxation. In Amstutz HC (ed). Hip Arthroplasty. New York, Churchill Livingstone. 429–448, 1991.Google Scholar
Bader R, Scholz R, Steinhauser E, Zimmermann S, Busch R, Mittelmeier W. The influence of head and neck geometry on stability of total hip replacement A mechanical test study. Acta Orthop Scand; 75(4): 415–421 415, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM. Relationship of femoral head and acetabular size to the prevalence of dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 355:163–70, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaulé PE et al.: Metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty with a cemented femoral component: A 7–10 year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 19, Suppl 3: 17–22, 2004.Google Scholar
Campbell JH, Beaulé PE.: Editorial, J Arthroplasty 19, Suppl 3: 2–3, 2004.Google Scholar
Shimmin AJ, Back D.: Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing. a national review of 50 cases. JBJS;87-B:463–464, 2005
Von Knoch M, Berry D: Late Dislocation after Total Hip Arthroplasty. JBJS 84-A:1949–1953, 2002.Google Scholar
Mulholland SJ, Wyss UP. Activities of daily living in non-Western cultures: range of motion requirements for hip and knee joint implants. Int J Rehabil Res. Sep;24(3):191–8, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
© Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt 2006