Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Functional outcome following a large head total hip arthroplasty

A retrospective analysis of mid term results

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

One of the reasons that hip resurfacing and large head metal on metal (MOM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) became popular in Asia was the possible increased range of movement and thereby improved function of the hip joint. Due to concerns of MOM articulation an alternative bearing was sought. Hence, a shift from large head MOM to large head ceramic on ceramic (COC) was made. The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome including range of motion (ROM) and dislocation rates following large head MOM and large head COC THA.

Materials and Methods

Retrospectively, 39 primary THA with large head MOM with a mean age of 56 years (range 36-72 years) and average followup of 54 months (range 38-70 months) were compared with 23 primary THA with large head COC bearing with a mean age of 48 years (range 36-68 years) and an average followup of 18 months (range 12-26 months). Functional outcome was assessed using the Modified Harris Hip Score. Dislocation rate and ROM were compared.

Results

Global ROM averaged 248 degrees with MOM group and 252 degrees with the COC group. One patient with metal bearing had dislocation at an average 3 year followup which required revision THA while there were no complications in the COC group. MHHS averaged 89 points in MOM and 94 in COC THR.

Conclusion

This study has shown that large head ceramic on ceramic THA is a good alternative to large head metal on metal THA with comparable dislocation rates and range of movements and without complications of metallosis in Asian patients.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_countries_by_population. 2013. [Last accessed on 2013 Dec 12].

  2. 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 2001;24:191–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, Roy A, Prince F, Vendittoli PA. The John Charnley Award: The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: A randomized, double-blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:326–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mont MA, Marker DR, Smith JM, Ulrich SD, McGrath MS. Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zywiel MG, Marker DR, McGrath MS, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Resurfacing matched to standard total hip arthroplasty by preoperative activity levels-a comparison of postoperative outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009;67:116–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baker RP, Pollard TC, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. A medium-term comparison of hybrid hip replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing in active young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011;93:158–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five-.to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88:592–600.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Five to nine-year followup. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:1183–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Neumann DR, Thaler C, Hitzl W, Huber M, Hofstadter T, Dorn U. Long term results of a contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: A 10-year followup study. J Arthroplasty 2010;25:700–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rajpura A, Porter ML, Gambhir AK, Freemont AJ, Board TN. Clinical experience of revision of metal on metal hip arthroplasty for aseptic lymphocyte dominated vasculitis associated lesions (ALVAL). Hip Int 2011;21:43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Beaule PE. Prevention and treatment of dislocation after total hip replacement using large diameter balls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;429:108–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beaule PE, Schmalzried TP, Udomkiat P, Amstutz HC. Jumbo femoral head for the treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84:256–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cuckler JM, Moore KD, Lombardi AV Jr., McPherson E, Emerson R. Large versus small femoral heads in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004;19:41–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hummel MT, Malkani AL, Yakkanti MR, Baker DL. Decreased dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty using larger femoral head size and posterior capsular repair. J Arthroplasty 2009;24:73–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Berry DJ. Epidemiology of instability after total hip replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 2001;32:543–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Woo RY, Morrey BF. Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982;64:1295–306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sugano N, Takao M, Sakai T, Nishii T, Miki H, Ohzono K. Eleven-.to 14-year followup results of cementless total hip arthroplasty using a third-generation alumina ceramic-on-ceramic bearing. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:736–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Willmann G. Ceramics for total hip replacement—what a surgeon should know. Orthopedics 1998;21:173–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bartz RL, Nobel PC, Kadakia NR, Tullos HS. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:1300–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Amstutz HC, Lodwig RM, Schurman DJ, Hodgson AG. Range of motion studies for total hip replacements. A comparative study with a new experimental apparatus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975;111:124–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chandler DR, Glousman R, Hull D, McGuire PJ, Kim IS, Clarke IC, et al. Prosthetic hip range of motion and impingement. The effects of head and neck geometry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982;166:284–91.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gagala J, Mazurkiewicz T, Dajewski Z. Large diameter femoral heads in primary alumina/alumina and XSPE/alumina total hip arthroplasty. A followup study of 50 hips after average 40 months and review of literature. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 2011;76:14–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Porat M, Parvizi J, Sharkey PF, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr., Barrack RL. Causes of failure of ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:382–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schouten R, Malone AA, Tiffen C, Frampton CM, Hooper G. A prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing ceramic-on-metal and metal-on-metal bearing surfaces in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94:1462–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Amlie E, Hovik O, Reikeras O. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty with 28 and 32-mm femoral head. J Orthop Traumatol 2010;11:111–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:2456–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ali Khan MA, Brakenbury PH, Reynolds IS. Dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1981;63:214–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bystrom S, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Havelin LI. Femoral head size is a risk factor for total hip luxation: A study of 42,987 primary hip arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand 2003;74:514–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of orthopedics, P.D. Hinduja National Hospital and MRC, Veer Savarkar Marg, Mahim (W), Mumbai, 400 016, Maharashtra, India

    Sanjay Agarwala, Ganesh Mohrir & Pradeep Moonot

Authors
  1. Sanjay Agarwala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ganesh Mohrir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pradeep Moonot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjay Agarwala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agarwala, S., Mohrir, G. & Moonot, P. Functional outcome following a large head total hip arthroplasty. IJOO 48, 410–414 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.136295

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.136295

Key words

MeSH terms

Search

Navigation