Skip to main content

Clinical advantages with large diameter heads

  • Conference paper
Bioceramics and Alternative Bearings in Joint Arthroplasty

Part of the book series: Ceramics in Orthopaedics ((CIO))

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Amstutz, H.C. Kody, MH: Dislocation and Subluxation. In Amstutz HC (ed). Hip Arthroplasty. New York, Churchill Livingstone. 429–448, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Campbell JH, Beaulé PE.: Editorial, J Arthroplasty 19, Suppl 3: 2–3, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shimmin AJ, Back D.: Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing. a national review of 50 cases. JBJS;87-B:463–464, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Von Knoch M, Berry D: Late Dislocation after Total Hip Arthroplasty. JBJS 84-A:1949–1953, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt

About this paper

Cite this paper

Santori, N., Giacomi, R., Potestio, D., Chilelli, F. (2006). Clinical advantages with large diameter heads. 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_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7985-1635-9_3

  • Publisher Name: Steinkopff

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7985-1634-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7985-1635-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics