1983
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.65b5.6643555
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A femoral head prosthesis with a built-in joint. A radiological study of the movements of the two components

Abstract: Twenty patients each with a fractured femoral neck had a prosthesis with a built-in ball-and-socket joint inserted. Movements at the built-in joint were compared with total hip movement immediately after operation, one month later and three months later. It was found that the built-in joint soon lost mobility and at three months was almost completely stiff. Consequently such joints cannot be expected to prevent the acetabular erosion which is liable to follow femoral head replacement for fracture.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
35
2

Year Published

1992
1992
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 78 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
3
35
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In a mean follow-up period of 23.5 months, two-thirds of bipolar prostheses behaved like unipolar prostheses, moving only from the outer articular surfaces. In previous studies, a decrease in inner bearing motion over time was reported (15,16). Verberne et al (16) demonstrated cessation of inner bearing motion at the third postoperative month, and Chen et al (15) reported similar findings at the second postoperative year.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In a mean follow-up period of 23.5 months, two-thirds of bipolar prostheses behaved like unipolar prostheses, moving only from the outer articular surfaces. In previous studies, a decrease in inner bearing motion over time was reported (15,16). Verberne et al (16) demonstrated cessation of inner bearing motion at the third postoperative month, and Chen et al (15) reported similar findings at the second postoperative year.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…In a recent Cochrane review, there was no difference in acetabular erosion between unipolar and bipolar prostheses (24). Unipolar prostheses seem likely to lead to more acetabular erosion during long-term followup, but how long the inner bearing surface motion of bipolar prostheses will continue is debatable (15,16,25).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The Leinbach prosthesis with a solid head may accelerate wear of the acetabular cartilage [18]. For this reason some authors preferred to use a bipolar femoral prosthesis that could be converted to a total hip replacement [2,5,6].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bateman (1974) described that the bipolar prosthesis provides two surfaces for motion, which transfer the motion of the metal head in the acetabulum to the low friction inner bearing of the prosthesis. Later, further bipolar prostheses have been developed: the Hastings Hip (Devas and Hinves, 1983), the Variokopf (Verberne, 1983), and Bi-articular hip prostheses (Franklin and Gallannaugh, 1983), which all comprise a femoral component with a spherical head that articulates with a high-density polyethylene acetabular insert, enclosed by an outer steel shell. Other design such as the Monk prosthesis (Monk, 1976) which was originally made of polyethylene alone was subsequently modified to be covered with an outer metal shell (Chen et al, 1980).…”
Section: Bipolar Hemiarthroplastymentioning
confidence: 99%