Metal-on-metal resurfacing versus total hip replacement-the value of a randomized clinical trial.
This article describes a randomized clinical trial in young patients, comparing metal-on-metal cemented resurfacing hip replacement with cemented total hip replacement. The trial was stopped early, mainly because of a high incidence of failure of the cemented resurfacing acetabular component. The results reinforce the importance of clinical trials for evaluating the safety and efficacy of prosthesis designs before being used in a large cohort of patients. Although there may be advantages of resurfacing hip replacement, trials are also required to demonstrate it has a midterm success that reasonably approaches that of total hip replacement.
Howie
Donald W
DW
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, L4 Bice Building, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia. donald.howie@adelaide.edu.au
McGee
Margaret A
MA
Costi
Kerry
K
Graves
Stephen E
SE
D000328:Adult; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D001843:Bone Cements; D005260:Female; D005271:Femur Head Necrosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery; D006622:Hip Prosthesis; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008670:Metals; D008875:Middle Aged; D015207:Osteoarthritis, Hip / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery; D010147:Pain Measurement; D011379:Prognosis; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D011859:Radiography; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology; D018570:Risk Assessment; D013499:Surface Properties
D001843:Bone Cements; D008670:Metals