Conclusions
Last generation resurfacing systems represent the best solution between the highest preservation of the femoral bone and the reliability with time in young patients, on condition that indications and exclusion criteria are observed and a high precision technique is used for performing the implant. The main problem is still the fracture of the neck of the femur which must be described in detail to the patient on which this procedure will be carried out. According to the data reported by literature, the incidence of the fracture of the neck of the femur ranges between 0.2% and 2%. When comparing these data with the incidence ranging between 0.33 and 4.51% of the dislocations caused by traditional prostheses, the obvious question is whether this complication, in case of well osteointegrated prostheses, is a problem less difficult to handle than the fracture of the neck of the femur.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
J. Daniel, P.B. Pynsent, D.J.W. McMinn (2004) Metal on metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J. Bone Joint Surg. 86-B:177–184.
H. C. Amstutz, P. E. Beaulè, F. J. Dorey, M. J. Le Duff, P. A. Campbell, T. A. Gruen (2004) Metal on metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J. Bone Joint Surg. 86-A 28–39.
H. C. Amstutz, P. A. Campbell, M. J. Le Duff (2004) Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J. Bone Joint Surg. 86-A: 1874–1877.
D. Back, R. Dalziel, D. Young, A. Shimmin (2005) Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacing. An indipendent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J. Bone Joint Surg. 87-B: 324–329.
A. J. Shimmin, J. Bare, D.L. Back (2005) Complication associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 36: 187–193.
P. E. Beaulè, J. Antoniades (2005) Patient selection and surgical technique for surface arthroplasty of the hip. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 36: 177–185.
P. E. Beaulè, J. L. Lee, M. J. Le Duff, H. C. Amstutz, E. Ebramzadeh (2004) Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. A biomechanical and clinical analysis. J. Bone Joint Surg. 86-A: 2015–2021.
A. J. Shimmin, D. Back (2005) Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. J. Bone Joint Surg. 87-B: 463–464.
R. B. C. Treacy, C. W. McBryde, P. B. Pynsent (2005) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty a minimum follow-up of five years. J. Bone Joint Surg. 87-B 167–170.
S. Nork, M. Schar, G. Pfander, M. Beck, V. Djonov, R. Ganz, M. Leunig (2005) Anatomic considerations for the choice of surgical approach for hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 36: 163–170.
T. P. Schmalzried, P.C. Peters, B.T. Maurer, C.R. Bragdon, W.H. Harris (1996) long duration metal on metal total hip arthroplasties with low wear of the articulating surfaces. J Artrhroplasty. 11: 322–321.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ravasi, F., Sirtori, P. (2006). Surgeon and resurfacing: considerations after a long experience. In: Benazzo, F., Falez, F., Dietrich, M. (eds) Bioceramics and Alternative Bearings in Joint Arthroplasty. Ceramics in Orthopaedics. Steinkopff. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7985-1635-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7985-1635-9_6
Publisher Name: Steinkopff
Print ISBN: 978-3-7985-1634-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-7985-1635-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)