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 90-B, Issue SUPP_I, 10.  
Copyright © 2008 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 Ashford, R.
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ashford, R.
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, P

British Orthopaedic Association


Birmingham, England: 17–19 September 2003

President: Professor Paul Gregg


CATASTROPHIC FAILURE ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAGNER HIP RESURFACING PROSTHESIS AND THE IMPACT ON SUBSEQUENT REVISION SURGERY

RU Ashford; A Frasquet-Garcia; P De Boer; and P Campbell

York Hospital, Wigginton Road, York Y031 8HE

Hip resurfacing is a procedure designed to conserve bone stock in the younger patient and facilitate revision to a total hip arthroplasty if the need arises. The Wagner Hip Resurfacing (WHR) was a metal-on- poly implant introduced in 1978.

The notes and radiographs of 16 patients who underwent 19 WHR procedures performed by a single surgeon between 1980 and 1984 were reviewed.

The mean age at primary surgery was 54 (range 41–68). 16 of the WHRs required revision at a mean time of 45 months (range 1–144 months). 3 WHR had not been revised: one is functioning at 22 years, one functioning well 20 years after implantation when the patient died and 1 non-functional 9 years after implantation due to femoral head reabsorption.

The reason for revision was femoral neck fracture (3), femoral head collapse / avascular necrosis or loosening (8), acetabular loosening (5).

Subsequent problems with the revision were noted in 6 patients (2 dislocations, 2 infections, 1 acetabular loosening and 1 femoral loosening). 3 patients ended with a Girdlestone excision arthroplasty and 2 required re-revision.

Hip resurfacing is designed as a conservative option for the young arthritic hip. This prosthesis not only failed catastrophically at an early stage but had a major subsequent impact on revision surgery and complications associated with it.

The abstracts were prepared by Mr Tim Briggs. (Editoral Secretary 2003/4) Correspondence should be addressed to him at Lane Farm, Chapel Lane, Totternhoe, Dunstable, Bedfordshire LU6 2BZ, United Kingdom






(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