Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: Past, Present and Future

Al-Jabri, Talal; Ridha, Mohamed; McCulloch, Robert E.; Kayani, Babar; Arif, Anum; Habad, Mohamed; Kosuge, Dennis; Jayadev, Chethan; Donaldson, James; Skinner, John

doi:10.52965/001c.77745

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The contemporary generation of HRA endoprostheses has been utilized for over 20 years, while resurfacing arthroplasty has a hundred-year-long history [10][11][12][13]. From its beginning, the concept of resurfacing arthroplasty evolved through the variety of designs Biomimetics 2024, 9, 99 2 of 19 of endoprosthesis components, different material choices used and through the changes in fixation methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards the First Generation of Biomimetic Fixation for Resurfacing Arthroplasty Endoprostheses

Uklejewski,

Winiecki,

Dąbrowski

et al. 2024

Biomimetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents advances in designs of resurfacing arthroplasty endoprostheses that occurred through their historical generations. The critical characteristics of contemporary generation hip resurfacing arthroplasty endoprostheses are given and the failures resulting from the specific generation cemented and short stem fixation of the femoral component are reviewed. On the background of these failures, the critical need arises for an alternative approach to the fixation of components of resurfacing arthroplasty leading towards the first generation of biomimetic fixation for resurfacing arthroplasty endoprostheses. The state of the art of the completed bioengineering research on the first biomimetic fixation for resurfacing arthroplasty endoprostheses is presented. This new design type of completely cementless and stemless resurfacing arthroplasty endoprostheses of the hip joint (and other joints), where endoprosthesis components are embedded in the surrounding bone via the prototype biomimetic multi-spiked connecting scaffold (MSC-Scaffold), initiates the first at all generations of biomimetic endoprostheses of diarthrodial joints.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards the First Generation of Biomimetic Fixation for Resurfacing Arthroplasty Endoprostheses

Uklejewski,

Winiecki,

Dąbrowski

et al. 2024

Biomimetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Za,

Casciaro,

Papalia

et al. 2024

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishing minimal clinically important differences and patient acceptable symptom state thresholds following birmingham hip resurfacing

Pasqualini,

Huffman,

Emara

et al. 2024

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) has emerged as a compelling and innovative alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially among young, active patients. However, the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds have not yet been determined for patients undergoing BHR. Therefore, the current study aimed to (1) determine the MCID and PASS thresholds for both the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)-Pain and HOOS physical function shortform (PS), for patients who underwent BHR; and (2) identify factors influencing the achievement of MCID and PASS for HOOS-Pain and HOOS-PS. Methods Prospectively collected data from patients undergoing BHR was analyzed. Patients with osteoarthritis and completed preoperative and 1-year postoperative PROMs were included. Distribution-based and anchored-based approaches were used to estimate MCID and PASS, respectively. The optimal cut-off point for PASS thresholds was calculated using the Youden index. Results MCID for HOOS-Pain and PS were calculated to be 9.2 and 9.3, respectively. The PASS threshold for HOOS-Pain and PS were ≥ 77.7 and ≥ 87.3, respectively. The current study identified several factors affecting postoperative achievement of thresholds. Baseline Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores were a predictor for achieving MCID for postoperative HOOS-Pain, achieving MCID for postoperative HOOS-PS, achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-Pain, and achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-PS. Furthermore, baseline HOOS-Pain was a significant predictor for achieving MCID for postoperative HOOS-PS, achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-Pain, and achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-PS. Conclusions MCID and PASS thresholds were established for HOOS-Pain and PS domains following BHR with most patients achieving these clinically meaningful benchmarks. Additionally, several factors affecting achievement of MCID and PASS were identified, including modifiable risk factors that may allow clinicians to implement optimization strategies and further improve outcomes.

show abstract

Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: Past, Present and Future

Cited by 4 publications

References 60 publications

Towards the First Generation of Biomimetic Fixation for Resurfacing Arthroplasty Endoprostheses

Towards the First Generation of Biomimetic Fixation for Resurfacing Arthroplasty Endoprostheses

Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Establishing minimal clinically important differences and patient acceptable symptom state thresholds following birmingham hip resurfacing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About