Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Implants for total hip arthroplasty.

James A Sanfilippo1, Matthew S Austin

  • 1Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Resident in Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA. james.sanfilippo@gmail.com

Expert Review of Medical Devices
|February 7, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Cefazolin and the R1 Side Chain: Why Patients with a Cephalosporin Allergy Can Be Safely Given Cefazolin While Undergoing Joint Arthroplasty.

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume·2026
Same author

Does the Use of a Robotic Gap-tensioning System Improve Functional Outcomes After TKA? A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2025
Same author

2025 ICM: Antibiotic Prophylaxis.

The Journal of arthroplasty·2025
Same author

2025 ICM: Antibiotics Usage Criteria.

The Journal of arthroplasty·2025
Same author

Evaluating Surgeon-influenced Factors for Total Knee Arthroplasty Value-based Reimbursement.

The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons·2025
Same author

Ten-Year Trends in Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis at a High-Volume Arthroplasty Center.

The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons·2024
Same journal

Review of regulatory requirements for benefit - risk assessment for medical devices: uncovering existing methodologies.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Two sides to every wrist: trans-ulnar access for cardiac interventions.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Comparative review of coronary CT angiography versus conventional catheter angiography: diagnostic value, clinical outcomes, and underlying technical principles.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Assessing the MYNX CONTROL arterial vascular closure device after catheterization procedures that enter the body through the femoral arteries.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Efficacy of two anatomically preformed supraglottic devices, the BlockBuster Laryngeal mask airway and the Ambu AuraGain, for ventilation in anesthetised paralyzed pediatric patients: a randomized trial.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Prismatic treatment combined with binocular visual training for intermittent exotropia: impact on visual function and quality of life.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
See all related articles

This review examines total hip replacement designs and fixation methods. Cementless acetabular fixation shows superiority, while both cemented and cementless stem fixation are acceptable in specific cases.

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic surgery
  • Biomedical engineering
  • Materials science

Background:

  • Total hip replacement (THR) is a common procedure for hip osteoarthritis.
  • Advancements in implant design and fixation are crucial for long-term success.
  • Understanding bearing surfaces and biomechanics is key to improving THR outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide a comprehensive, unbiased review of total hip replacement design literature.
  • To analyze implant designs, fixation methods, and bearing surfaces.
  • To summarize long-term outcome studies and failure modes influencing technological development.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic literature review of published studies on THR.
  • Analysis of data on cemented, cementless, and hybrid fixation techniques.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Evaluation of bearing surface technologies and hip biomechanics.

    • Main Results:

    • Cementless acetabular fixation demonstrates superior outcomes compared to cemented fixation.
    • Both cemented and cementless stem fixation methods are viable options depending on the clinical context.
    • Bearing surface characteristics significantly impact THR longevity.

    Conclusions:

    • Cementless acetabular fixation is recommended for improved long-term THR results.
    • Stem fixation choice should be individualized based on patient factors and surgical goals.
    • Continued research into bearing surfaces and biomechanics is essential for future THR innovations.