The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 25, Issue 3 , Pages 387-391 , April 2010

Hip Flexion After Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: Role of Cup Anteversion, Anterior Femoral Head-Neck Offset, and Head-Neck Ratio

Received 13 March 2008 ,Accepted 25 January 2009.

References 

  1. Amstutz HC, Lodwig RM, Schurman DJ, et al. Range of motion studies for total hip replacements. a comparative study with a new experimental apparatus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;11:124
  2. Herrlin K, Selvik G, Pettersson H, et al. Range of motion caused by design of the total hip prosthesis. Acta Radiol. 1988;29:701
  3. Chandler DR, Glousman R, Hull D, et al. Prosthetic hip range of motion and impingement. The effects of head and neck geometry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;166:284
  4. Bader R, Scholz R, Steinhauser E, et al. The influence of head and neck geometry on stability of total hip replacement: a mechanical test study. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:415
  5. Bartz RL, Nobel PC, Kadakia NR, et al. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1300
  6. Burroughs BR, Hallstrom B, Golladay GJ, et al. Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:11
  7. Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH, et al. Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don't do. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:102
  8. Padgett DE, Lipman J, Robie B, et al. Influence of total hip design on dislocation: a computer model and clinical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:48
  9. Ito K, Minka MA, Leunig M, et al. Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. a MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:171
  10. Beaule PE, Harvey N, Zaragoza E, et al. The femoral head/neck offset and hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:9
  11. Widmer KH, Zurfluh B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:815
  12. Widmer KH, Majewski M. The impact of the CCD-angle on range of motion and cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20:723
  13. Seki M, Yuasa N, Ohkuni K. Analysis of optimal range of socket orientations in total hip arthroplasty with use of computer-aided design simulation. J Orthop Res. 1998;16:513
  14. Yoshimine F, Ginbayashi K. A mathematical formula to calculate the theoretical range of motion for total hip replacement. J Biomech. 2002;35:989
  15. Malik A, Maheshwari A, Dorr LD. Impingement with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1832
  16. Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, et al. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:762
  17. Wolf A, DiGioia AM, Mor AB, et al. A kinematic model for calculating cup alignment error during total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech. 2005;38:2257
  18. D'Lima DD, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, et al. The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:315
  19. Barrack RL. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation. J am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11:89
  20. Herrlin K, Pettersson H, Selvik G, et al. Femoral anteversion and restricted range of motion in total hip prostheses. Acta Radiol. 1988;29:551
  21. Krushell RJ, Burke DW, Harris WH. Range of motion in contemporary total hip arthroplasty. The impact of modular head-neck components. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6:97
  22. Roder C, Staub LP, Eggli S, et al. Influence of preoperative functional status on outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:11

 No benefits or funds were received in support of the study.

PII: S0883-5403(09)00058-8

doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.01.026

The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 25, Issue 3 , Pages 387-391 , April 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution