Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
"Rather than a total hip replacement at such a young age, resurfacing is a great alternative. ... size of the ball at the end of the femur and smoothed the hip socket, which had arthritis ...
Hip resurfacing is a surgical alternative to total hip replacement (THR). The procedure consists of placing a cap (usually made of cobalt-chrome metal), which is hollow and shaped similarly to the cap of a mushroom, over the head of the femur while a matching metal cup (similar to what is used with a THR) is placed in the acetabulum (pelvis socket), replacing the articulating surfaces of the ...
For the last 45 years, [when?] the most successful and common form of arthroplasty is the surgical replacement of arthritic or destructive or necrotic joint or joint surface with a prosthesis. [ medical citation needed ] For example, a hip joint that is affected by osteoarthritis may be replaced entirely ( total hip arthroplasty ) with a ...
Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a condition involving one or more anatomical abnormalities of the hip joint, which is a ball and socket joint. [1] It is a common cause of hip pain and discomfort in young and middle-aged adults. [2]
Joint replacement is considered as a treatment when severe joint pain or dysfunction is not alleviated by less-invasive therapies. Joint replacement surgery is often indicated from various joint diseases, including osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. [citation needed] Joint replacement has become more common, mostly with knee and hip ...
A variable period on crutches after hip arthroscopy is common although physiotherapy is seen by many to play a very significant part in post-operative recovery. The regime usually starts with encouragement for a free range of movement, stretches and isometric exercises leading to subsequent dynamic, plyometric and weights exercises.
The Swedish Hip Register shows that in young patients, 19% of THRs failed 10 years after the operation and 67% had failed by 16 years. [10] Because these patients are young, early failure implies the need for repeated revision operations using progressively more invasive and more complex devices.
The analysis of 402,051 hip replacements showed that 6.2% of metal-on-metal hip implants had failed within five years, compared to 1.7% of metal-on-plastic and 2.3% of ceramic-on-ceramic hip implants. Each 1 mm (0.039 in) increase in head size of metal-on-metal hip implants was associated with a 2% increase in failure rate. [63]