A comparison of leg length and femoral offset discrepancies in hip resurfacing, large head metal-on- metal and conventional total hip replacement: A case series

17Citations
Citations of this article
52Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: A discrepancy in leg length and femoral offset restoration is the leading cause of patient dissatisfaction in hip replacement surgery and has profound implications on patient quality of life. The aim of this study is to compare biomechanical hip reconstruction in hip resurfacing, large-diameter femoral head hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip replacement.Method: Sixty patient's post-operative radiographs were reviewed; 20 patients had a hip resurfacing (HR), 20 patients had a Large Head Metal-on-metal (LHM) hip replacement and 20 patients had a conventional small head Total Hip Replacement (THR). The leg length and femoral offset of the operated and unoperated hips were measured and compared.Results: Hip resurfacing accurately restored hip biomechanics with no statistical difference in leg length (P = 0.07) or femoral offset (P = 0.95) between the operated and non-operative hips. Overall HR was superior for reducing femoral offset discrepancies where it had the smallest bilateral difference (-0.2%, P = 0.9). The traditional total hip replacement was least effective at restoring the hip anatomy.Conclusion: The use of a larger-diameter femoral head in hip resurfacing does not fully account for the superior biomechanical restoration, as LHM did not restore femoral offset as accurately. We conclude that restoration of normal hip biomechanics is best achieved with hip resurfacing. © 2011 Herman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Herman, K. A., Highcock, A. J., Moorehead, J. D., & Scott, S. J. (2011). A comparison of leg length and femoral offset discrepancies in hip resurfacing, large head metal-on- metal and conventional total hip replacement: A case series. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-65

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free