Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Metal-on-metal resurfacing versus total hip replacement - the value of a randomized clinical trial|
Mc Gee, M.
|Citation:||Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 2005; 36(2):195-201|
|Publisher:||W B Saunders Co|
|Donald W. Howie, Margaret A. McGee, Kerry Costi, Stephen E. Graves|
|Abstract:||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.|
Femur Head Necrosis
Range of Motion, Articular
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
|Rights:||© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.|
|Appears in Collections:||Aurora harvest 2|
Orthopaedics and Trauma publications
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.