Surface Hippy® - Guide To Hip Resurfacing

Serving The Patient Community Since 12/11/2005     Patricia Walter Owner/Webmaster

Clusty

To Advertise
Contact Patricia
2000+ Unique Visitors a day

Hip Resurfacing News

Dr. Edwin Su  Replies to Dr. Kurtz Book and Opinions

Dr. Kurtz had an article online that had concerns about the head neck rations of hip resurfacing compared to total hip replacement. We wanted to provide potential hip resurfacing patients with opinions of other top resurfacing surgeons to explain their views.

Hi Vicky,

Very nice to hear from you. I'm sorry for the delay in responding, but I wanted to take time to craft a thoughtful response on this subject, as I'm sure many people look to you for sound advice.

I have read over the material at this website many times. I have concluded, as I'm sure you have, that it was written by someone who has a very limited experience with resurfacing. In short, it full of speculation and non-factual conclusions, interspersed with a few truths. As such, it can appear convincing at first glance, but when really scrutinized, many of the arguments don't hold water.

In the section entitled the biomechanics of hip resurfacing, it is actually true that a resurfacing implant will have a poorer head neck ratio than a comparable large diameter metal on metal THR. It is also true that head-neck ratio influences that amount of motion prior to impingement. However, the question is whether this would translate to a clinical difference or not. Furthermore, some of the arguments that he makes are not accurate: 

"If a small lady has a 46 mm head diameter, her hip resurfacing would likely have a 46 mm head diameter, a 40 mm neck diameter, and a 1.15 (46/40) head-neck ratio. If a large man has a 58 head diameter, his resurfacing head would likely have a 58 mm head diameter, a 49 mm neck diameter, and a 1.18 head-neck ratio." 

First off, this argument doesn't account for the acetabular size at all. As we know, the acetabular and femoral head sizes are linked together. So the fit of the acetabulum will influence what head size is used. So, it isn't a rote fact that the neck will be 6-9 mm smaller than the head diameter. The relationship of the acetabulum and the femoral head size is such that the head neck ratio doesn't change much from preop to postop. I have performed research analyses on the typical head ratio following resurfacing. It is approximately 1.34, as compared to 1.39 preoperative. The reason that it is slightly lower is to preserve acetabular bone. 

"One additional factor influences the head neck ratio in hip resurfacing, the femoral component height. Sometimes, a surgeon will attempt to lengthen a patient's leg during hip resurfacing by removing less bone off the top of the femur and placing the femoral component higher or more proud. When the surgeon raises the femoral component, he/she inadvertently raises the femoral head/neck junction. The femoral neck diameter increases as you move up the femoral neck until it fads into the femoral head. Therefore, if a surgeon raises the femoral component, he/she is ensuring an increased neck diameter and a sub-optimal head/neck ratio." 

This is a dangerous technique, one that is not recommended by any experienced resurfacer. By leaving the femoral component higher, you will increase the risk of fracture. 

"Second, the acetabular bone has a particular shape to the anterior wall that allows more motion before the femoral neck hits the acetabular rim. "

This doesn't change, even after the resurfacing. If put in properly, the acetabular component should still be below the native acetabular rim.

"In a hip resurfacing, the femoral neck impinges of the metal rim of the acetabular component. I feel that the repetitive hard impact is the main cause of femoral neck fractures. "

The last statement is ridiculous and unfounded. This is certainly not the main cause of fracture, otherwise all the fractures would occur late, and not within the first few months. 

In any case, the argument about a poorer head neck ratio is a theoretical and don't have clinical relevance. That is, they don't translate to any detriment to patients. It clearly can't mean that motion is going to be limited, otherwise how do we see so many success with ROM, such as yourself? It is true that the components have to be put in perfectly to ensure good ROM, and I will test this while the patient is on the table, so that I may adjust it if necessary. 

I hope that is helpful.

Regards Dr. Edwin Su

L10 Web Stats Reporter 3.15 LevelTen Hit Counter - Free PHP Web Analytics Script
LevelTen dallas web development firm - website design, flash, graphics & marketing

Advertisement


View My Stats

Statistics Page

Web design by Patricia Walter Copyright Surface Hippy® 12/11/2005

Mission Statement - Surface Hippy® is a patient to patient guide to hip resurfacing. It does not provide medical advice. It is designed to support, not to replace, the relationship between patient and clinician.
Advertising - Revenue from this site is derived from commercial advertising and individual donations.
Any advertisement is distinguished by the word "advertisement"
Privacy - Surface Hippy® does not share email addresses or personal information with any group or organization.
Content - Surface Hippy® is not controlled or influenced by any medical companies, doctors or hospitals.
All content is controlled by Patricia Walter  -
Joint Health Sites  LLC
This site is published by Joint Health Sites LLC, which is solely responsible for its content.
The advertisements on this site are not intended by the advertisers as an endorsement of the site's content.
The advertisers shall not be liable for any errors or omissions in the site's content,
nor liable for any damages from any person's actions based in reliance on the site's content.