Publications
Annals of Joint. 2020.
Hip international. 2020
Musculoskeletal Surgery. 2020
Acta Scientific Orthopedics. 2019
EC Ortho. 2019.
European Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 2014.
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2017
Hip International. 2019
Advances in Orthopedics; 2019
We investigate the efficacy of a modified acetabular bone-preparation technique in reducing the incidence of two clinical problems (lack of bone ingrowth and cup shift) identified in hip resurfacing arthroplasty.Advances in Orthopedics. 2018
Tech Orthop. 2010.
A prospective analysis has demonstrated improved clinical results and no increased compli- cations when employing MIS techniques for HRA using a posterior approach. KeyActa Orthop Belg. 2012.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of osteonecrosis (ON) and osteoarthritis (OA) patients after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).Journal of Arthroplasty 2017.
The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2016
Background: The optimal surgical treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head has yet to be 20 elucidated. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a 21 comparison of the results for two consecutive groups: Group 1 (75 hips) received hybrid hip 22 resurfacing implants with a cemented femoral component; Group 2 (103 hips) received 23 uncemented femoral components. Both groups received uncemented acetabular components. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a superior outcome for cases of osteonecrosis with 36 uncemented hip resurfacings compared to cases employing hybrid devices.BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2016.
Background: Arthritis secondary to developmental hip dysplasia often mandates implant surgery at a relatively young age. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), compared with standard stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA), affords a more active lifestyle including extreme-motion activities but stimulates concerns pertaining to implant failure. Conclusions: We believe the interventions reported here, combined with sufficient surgeon experience and properly designed implants, afford patients with mild developmental dysplasia a more active lifestyle with favorable implant survival.J Arthroplasty. 2012
We report the results of 58 hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRA) revised by a single surgeon with an average of 5.2±2.6 years follow-up. The four most common causes for revision were acetabular component loosening, femoral neck fracture，femoral component loosening, and adverse wear related failure (AWRF). In 95% of cases (55/58), the revision bearing was a large metal-on-metal type including in all seven AWRF cases; three cases were revised to ceramic-onpolyethylene. There were two repeat revisions due to acetabular component loosening.
Hip International. 2013
A single surgeon performed 2,559 metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties in 2,109 patients. The Corin Cormet 2000 (393 cases) and Biomet Recap implants (2,166 cases) were used in our series. In this study, the adverse wear failure (AWF) rate was 0.27%. At 10 years postoperatively, our Kaplan-Meier cumulative revision rate for AWF was 1% for all patients, 0.2% for men, 2.6% for women, and 9% for patients with a diagnosis of dysplasia.
Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013 May 13. pii: S0883-5403(13)
Between March 2007 and July 2010, 1000 consecutive fully porous coated hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRA) were performed by a single surgeon in 871 patients. The average length of follow-up was 3 ± 1 years. Three cases (0.3%) in three patients showed adverse wear related failures. Another 17 (1.7%) failures were identified at the time of this study. Using any failure of any component as the endpoint, the survivorship rate was 98.8% at two years and 97.4% at five years.