History of Hip Surface Replacement Arthroplasty 2 - Callum Clark 26/4/2001Evolution of THR since 1930s; Head-replacing vs. Surface-replacing Metal-on-metal vs. Metal-on-poly (and ceramic) Cemented vs. Cementless
2 Facets of evolution of present-day metal-on-metal S.R.A.; 1/ Metal-metal bearing hips 2/ Surface Replacement prostheses
METAL-ON-METAL BEARING TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENTS1938 Philip Wiles , Middx Hospital. "Thrust-plate" type THR in 6 young pts. Lasted few years 1950 Kenneth McKee (was Wiles' SR), N+N Hospital. 1 st 3 cases- 2 loose in 1 year (stainless steel). Visited USA - saw Thompson prosthesis made changes along same lines (Co-Cr-Mo). Uncemented. Late 1950s, put in 26- 15 lasted 7 yrs, others failed early 1960 Charnley introduced bone cement. McKee changed to cemented cup, but hemispherical shape and wide neck meant impingement. 1966 McKee-Farrar hip had narrower neck, then smaller cup (better cover), then head slightly smaller than cup - "polar" bearing, not "equatorial" (Hugh Philips revised a lot of these, and at 20 yrs, found some had metallic staining only) (Technique then was no reaming, one size fits all, and no anteversion of cup) 1964 Peter Ring (Redhill, Surrey) - Ring prosthesis = Austin Moore + screw-in metal cup. Early results were 38% poor. Increased valgus and bigger screw gave 80% survivorship @ 17 yrs (Discontinued 1979). 1963 John Scales (RNOH) "Stanmore metal-on-metal" - poorly machined, equatorial bearing. High incidence of loosening and "seizing up". 1968, made polar and better finishing - 15% failure @ 11 yrs. 1964 Maurice Muller (St. Gallen, Switzerland) - initially cemented, then cementless in young patients.
Other metal-on-metal replacements in 1950s and 60s in USA and France , most were Either Moore or Thompson stems with metal cup: e.g. Merle D'Aubigne, McBride, Gaenslen, Urist. 1970s METAL ON METAL WAS ABANDONED in favour of Charnley THR Reasons: 1 - Better early results with Charnley 2 - Frictional torque greater with metal-metal, increased shear across implant- bone interface - ?increased loosening. Also caused "seizing" 3 - Carcinogenesis concerns 4 - Metal sensitivity concerns 5 - ?High infection rates 1984 Muller, Weber (Sulzer) re-introduced idea of metal-on-metal BUT effectively 30 yrs of research into how to improve metal-poly prostheses. Noticed some metal-metal implants have survived 20 yrs†¦ 1991 McMinn prosthesis. SURFACE REPLACEMENT PROSTHESESEarly pioneers Smith-Peterson and Anfranc (10-20% early revision rates) 1950s Charnley resurfacing prosthesis made of Teflon - disaster with early failures 1953 Haboush - cemented metal-metal 1960 Townley - used polyurethane with bad results 1967 Muller - cementless metal-metal 1974 Gerard - cementless metal-metal 1970s Various metal-poly resurfacing implants: Trentani 1971 Please log in to view the content of this page. If you are having problems logging in, please refer to the login help page. |
|||
|
|||
|
|