Table 8: Summary of Clinical and Radiological Findings*.
| Study | Number of Patients (Hips) |
Mean Duration of Follow-up, Years (Range) |
Prosthesis | Revision Rate Number (%) |
Femoral Fracture Number (%) |
Osteonecrosis Number (%) |
Osteolysis Number (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De Smet et al. 2005 (36) | 252 (268) | 2.8 (2.0-5.0) | BHR | 3 (1.2) | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.8) |
| Back et al. 2005 (37) | (230) | 3 (2.0-4.4) | BHR | 1 (0.4) | 5 (2.2) | 0 | 0 (0.0) |
| Treacy et al. 2005 (38) | 130 (144) | NR | BHR | 3 (2.3) | 1 (0.7) | 1 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) |
| Lilikakis et al. 2005 (39) | 66 (70) | 2.8 (2.0-3.2) | Cormet 2000 | 2 (3.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 | 0 (0.0) |
| Amstutz et al. 2004 (34) | 355 (400) | 3.5 (2.2-6.2) | Conserve Plus | 12 (3.4) | 3 (.85) | 0 | 0 (0.0) |
| Daniel et al. 2004 (35) | 384 (446) | 3.3 (1.1-8.2) | BHR: 403 McMinn: 43 | 1 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 | 0 (0.0) |
| Beaule et al. 2004 (40) | 83 (94) | 3 (2.0-5.0) | Conserve Plus | 3 (3.6) | 1 (1.2) | 0 | 2 (2.0) |
| Beaule et al. 2004*(41) | 39 (42) | 8.7 (7.2-10) | McMinn | 14 (35.9) | 1 (2.6) | 0 | 1 (2.6) |
*
The results of the study that used implants with a cemented acetabular component are highlighted. This study was not included in this analysis based on the reasons mentioned above; NR indicates not reported; BHR, Birmingham Hip Resurfacing.