Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 88-B, Issue SUPP_II, 210.  
Copyright © 2006 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rydholm, U
Right arrow Articles by Kesteris, U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rydholm, U
Right arrow Articles by Kesteris, U.

European Rheumatoid Arthritis Surgical Society

Pfäffikon, Switzerland – 25–27 May, 2006

President – Beat R. Simmen

S28 SURFACE REPLACEMENT OF THE HIP – A RADIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLANT POSITION OBTAINED IN 72 HIPS WITH TWO DIFFERENT SURGICAL APPROACHES

RydholmU ; LiQ. ; and KesterisU.

Lund

Different resurfacing implants offer different kinds of positioning instruments. As it is of outmost importance to position the components within rather narrow limits to diminish the risk of femoral notching or impingement we decided to measure the position achieved in 72 hips resurfaced with the Durom® resurfacing hip and instruments.

There were 38 males and 27 females with 72 hips (7 bilateral). The indication was OA in 51 cases, RA in 12 and ON in 2. We compared 2 groups, 26 hips operated with an antero-lateral approach (A) and 46 with a postero-lateral approach (B).

The acetabular cup anteversion angle was 22±11° in group A and 15±9° in group B. The abduction angle was 38±9 ° in group A and 44±7° in group B. The acetabular gap was 2±1 mm, resp. 2±2 mm. The stem-shaft angle was 140±5° resp. 141±6°. Retroverted cups averaged 7±4°.

The difference between pre- and postoperative acetabular size was 3 mm in group A (mostly RA patients) and 5 mm in group B (mostly OA patients).

Conclusions: We have obtained a fairly good implant position. The only significant differences between the two groups were decreased acetabular cup abduction angle compared to the preoperative angle in the antero-lateral group, but increased angle in the postero-lateral group, and that less acetabular bone was removed in the antero-lateral group (patients with RA included) compared to the postero-lateral group.

Correspondence should be addressed to ERASS Office, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, CH-8008 ZURICH, Switzerland.






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General