Evolution for Diameters Features and Results

  • Paolo Dalla Pria
  • M. Pressacco
  • Francesco Benazzo
  • S. Fusi
Conference paper
Part of the Ceramics in Orthopaedics book series (CIO)


The success of prosthetic hip surgery, proved by numerous clinical outcomes at an international level, has determined a continuous increase of the number of surgeries. At the same time, the selection of the prosthetic component still remains controversial since it must always be chosen considering the effective benefit for the patient.


Femoral Head Acetabular Component Abduction Angle Anteversion Angle Femoral Head Size 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bartz RL, Noble PC, Kadakia NR, Tullos HS. (2000) The Effect of Femoral Component Head Size on Posterior Dislocation of the Artificial Hip Joint. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 82:1300–1307.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaulé PE, Schmalzried TP, Udomkiet P, Amstutz HC. (2002) Jumbo femoral heads for the treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 84:256–263.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergmann G, ed. (2001) Hip 98-loading of the Hip Joint.: Free University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berizzi A, Tzemtzang M, Aldegheri R. (2006) Head Diameter of 36 mm: New alumina on alumina bearing surfaces. In Proceedings 11th Biolox Symposium. Rome, June 30–July 1, pp 3–4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry DJ, Knock Mv, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS. (2005) Effect of Femoral Head Diameter and Operative Approach on Risk of Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 87:2456–2463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Binazzi R, Bondi A, Manca L, Marchesini L, Delcogliano M. (2006) Ceramic on ceramic cementless total hip arthroplasty in arthritis following congenital hip disease: an algorithm of the surgical treatment. In Proceedings 11th Biolox Symposium. Rome, June 30–July 1, pp 237–242.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burroughs BR, Hallstrom B, Golladay GJ, Hoeffel D, Harris WH. (2005) Range of Motion and Stability in Total Hip Arthroplasty With 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral Head Sizes. J Arthroplasty. 20(1):11–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byström S, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Havelin L. (2003) Femoral head size is a risk factor for total hip luxation. Acta Orthop Scand. 74(5):514–525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH, Humphrey SM, Blanchard CR. (2004) Biomechanics of Large Femoral Heads. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 429:102–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorr LD, Wan Z. (1988) Causes of and treatment protocol for instability of total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 355:144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dorr LD, Wolf AW, Chandler R, Conaty JP. (1983) Classification and treatment of dislocations of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 173:151–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giacometti Ceroni R, Dalla Pria P. (2001) The Development of Large Ceramic Head to Obtain More Stable THA with Wider Range of Motion. In Proceedings 6th Biolox Symposium. Stuttgart, March 23–24, pp 11–12.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ha Y-C, Kim S-Y, Kim HJ, Yoo JJ, Koo K-H. (2006) Ceramic Liner Fracture after Cementless Alumina-on-Alumina Total Hip Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 458:106–110.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hasegawa M, Sudo A, Uchida A. (2006) Alumina ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacement with a layered acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 88:877–882.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hemmerich A, Brown H, Smith S, Marthandam SS, Wyss UP. (2006) Hip, knee, and ankle kinematics of high range of motion activities of daily living. J Orthop Res. 24:770–781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM. (1998) Relationship of Femoral head and Acetabular Size to the Prevalence of Dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 355:163–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. (2006) Dislocation of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with 36 and 40-mm Femoral Heads. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 453:153–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morrey BF. (1992) Instability after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 23:237–248.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mulholland SJ, Wyss UP. (2001) Activities of daily living in non-Western cultures: range of motion requirements for hip and knee joint implants. Int J Rehabil Res. 24:191–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pedersen DR, Callaghan JJ, Johnston TL, Fetzer GB, Johnston RC. (2001) Comparison of femoral head penetration rates between cementless acetabular components with 22-mm and 28-mm heads. J Arthroplasty. 16(8):111–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rinaldi GP, Bonalumi M, Gaietta D, Capitani D. (2006) 36 mm Ceramic head for “difficult” cases. In Proceedings 11th Biolox Symposium. Rome, June 30–July 1, pp 17–20.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Santori N, Giacomi D, Potestio D, Chilelli F. (2006) Clinical advantages with large diameter heads. In Proceedings 11th Biolox Symposium. Rome, June 30–July 1, pp 11–16.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Woo RY, Morrey BF. (1982) Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 64(9):1295–1306.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zagra L, Giacometti Ceroni R. (2006) Ceramic-ceramic coupling with big heads: clinical outcome. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 10–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Dalla Pria
    • 1
  • M. Pressacco
  • Francesco Benazzo
    • 2
  • S. Fusi
  1. 1.LIMA Lto spaVillanova (UD)Italy
  2. 2.Fondazione I.R.C.C.S. Policlinico San MatteoUniversità di PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations