Anatomische Rekonstruktion des Hüftgelenks mit der schenkelhalserhaltenden Silent Micro Hip™
Standard
Anatomische Rekonstruktion des Hüftgelenks mit der schenkelhalserhaltenden Silent Micro Hip™. / Ries, C; Schopf, W; Dietrich, F; Franke, S; Jakubowitz, E; Sobau, C; Heisel, C.
in: Z ORTHOP UNFALLCHIR, Jahrgang 151, Nr. 5, 10.2013, S. 497-502.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Anatomische Rekonstruktion des Hüftgelenks mit der schenkelhalserhaltenden Silent Micro Hip™
AU - Ries, C
AU - Schopf, W
AU - Dietrich, F
AU - Franke, S
AU - Jakubowitz, E
AU - Sobau, C
AU - Heisel, C
N1 - Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
PY - 2013/10
Y1 - 2013/10
N2 - BACKGROUND: The design and the surgical technique of the Silent Micro Hip™ are different compared to other hip stems due to a conical shape for fixation within the metaphyseal femur. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate hip joint biomechanics of the Silent Micro Hip™ in comparison to other implants. Implant-specific differences are highlighted.MATERIAL AND METHOD: 150 consecutive patients (each group 50 Silent Micro Hip™, Nanos™ and SL-Plus™ MIA) were analysed retrospectively. For evaluation of biomechanical parameters pre- and postoperative X-rays (pelvic AP views) were used.RESULTS: The horizontal femoral offset and the limb length showed no significant difference between the Silent Micro Hip™ and the Nanos™ or SL-Plus™ MIA stem at the reconstructed hip. An almost anatomic reconstruction of hip joint biomechanics was reached with all three types of implants.CONCLUSIONS: The Silent Micro Hip™ allows for almost anatomic reconstruction of hip joint biomechanics. Short-term results support the bone-preserving reconstruction with a proximal femoral load transfer. Further studies on the mid- and long-term outcomes are ongoing.
AB - BACKGROUND: The design and the surgical technique of the Silent Micro Hip™ are different compared to other hip stems due to a conical shape for fixation within the metaphyseal femur. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate hip joint biomechanics of the Silent Micro Hip™ in comparison to other implants. Implant-specific differences are highlighted.MATERIAL AND METHOD: 150 consecutive patients (each group 50 Silent Micro Hip™, Nanos™ and SL-Plus™ MIA) were analysed retrospectively. For evaluation of biomechanical parameters pre- and postoperative X-rays (pelvic AP views) were used.RESULTS: The horizontal femoral offset and the limb length showed no significant difference between the Silent Micro Hip™ and the Nanos™ or SL-Plus™ MIA stem at the reconstructed hip. An almost anatomic reconstruction of hip joint biomechanics was reached with all three types of implants.CONCLUSIONS: The Silent Micro Hip™ allows for almost anatomic reconstruction of hip joint biomechanics. Short-term results support the bone-preserving reconstruction with a proximal femoral load transfer. Further studies on the mid- and long-term outcomes are ongoing.
KW - Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/instrumentation
KW - Equipment Failure Analysis
KW - Female
KW - Hip Joint/physiopathology
KW - Hip Prosthesis
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Miniaturization
KW - Organ Sparing Treatments/instrumentation
KW - Osteoarthritis, Hip/pathology
KW - Prosthesis Design
KW - Range of Motion, Articular
KW - Treatment Outcome
U2 - 10.1055/s-0033-1350862
DO - 10.1055/s-0033-1350862
M3 - SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz
C2 - 24129720
VL - 151
SP - 497
EP - 502
JO - Z ORTHOP UNFALLCHIR
JF - Z ORTHOP UNFALLCHIR
SN - 1864-6697
IS - 5
ER -
