One Universal Approach — or a Split World?

  • V. E. Krebs
  • W. K. Barsoum

Abstract

The evolution and advancements in adult eeconstructive orthopedic surgery over the past 20 years have been tremendous. Total joint arthroplasty has been a major focus of this evolution, and has been recognized as being among the most medically beneficial and cost-effective surgical procedures in the history of modern medicine. The effectiveness of these procedures has been driven by concurrent and multifaceted developments in the basic science of bone and joint biomechanics, material science, manufacturing, surgical techniques and instrumentation, and clinical outcomes measurement. Innovative and forward thinking surgeons have been the catalysts for the process, and these individuals and groups have come from around the globe with very different cultural and educational backgrounds. A certain degree of “ownership” has permeated the process, creating a competitive spirit that has accelerated innovation, sparked creativity, and continually challenged the generalized acceptance of any single procedure, exposure, and/or implant design.

Keywords

Migration Osteoporosis Cage Bursitis Column Fracture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    DeWal H, Su E, DiCesare PE. Instability following total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 32 (8): 377 - 382, 2003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kennon RE, Keggi JM, Wetmore RS et al. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A [Suppl 4]: 39–48, 2003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Masonis JL, Bourne RB. Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop 405: 46–53, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Masterson EL, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Surgical approaches in revision hip replacement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 6 (2): 84–92, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nezry N, Jeanrot C, Vinh TS, Ganz R, Tomeno B, Anract P. Partial anterior trochanteric osteotomy in total hip arthroplasty: surgical technique and preliminary results of 127 cases. J Arthroplasty 18 (3): 333–337, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parker MJ, Pervez H. Surgical approaches for inserting hemiarthroplasty of the hip. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD001707, 2002Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weeden SH, Paprosky WG, Bowling JW. The early dislocation rate in primary total hip arthroplasty following the posterior approach with posterior soft-tissue repair. J Arthroplasty 18 (6): 709–713, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    White RE Jr, Forness TJ, Allman JK, Junick DW. Effect of posterior capsular repair on early dislocation in primary total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 393: 163–167, 2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zimmerma S, Hawkes WG, Hudson Jl, Magaziner J, Hebel JR, Towheed T, Gardner J, Provenzano G, Kenzora JE. Outcomes of surgical management of total HIP replacement in patients aged 65 years and older: cemented versus cementless femoral components and lateral or anterolateral versus posterior anatomical approach. J Orthop Res 20 (2): 182–191, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. E. Krebs
  • W. K. Barsoum

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations