Analyze Your Search


  • Action links for each search result record
    • Bookmark: Allows you to Bookmark the page for easy future retrieval 
    • Email: Opens a pop-up window where you can write a message to the recipient of the email
    • Copy URL: Copies the URL of the requested document for pasting in an email or other document
    • More Info: Shows full summary of content record
  • Saved Searches and Alerts
    • Save your search for later viewing & updates by clicking the blue "Follow" button to the right of the search box. 
  Follow Topic   Edit Search
Your search returned 9 results
from the time period: last 30 days.
Sort by Relevance / Date Group By Journal / No Grouping
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
... pain are known to lead to worse outcomes following total hip replacement, to our knowledge, these risk factors have not previously been ... musculoskeletal morbidity) on the 1-year outcome of primary total hip replacement AbstractText: The EUROHIP study consists of 1,327 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement for arthritis across 20 European orthopaedic centers ...
Muscular and Skeletal Diseases (5), Anti-Obesity and Weight Loss (1)
Arthritis (4), Osteoarthritis (1), Back Pain (1), more mentions
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
In Treating Arthritis of the Knee, Beware the Ipsilateral Hip: Commentary on an article by Joerg Huber, MD, et al.: "The Influence of Arthritis in Other Major Joints and the Spine on the One-Year Outcome of Total Hip Replacement. A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study (EUROHIP) Measuring the Influence of Musculoskeletal Morbidity.
Muscular and Skeletal Diseases (4)
Arthritis (4), more mentions
3. What's New in Hip Replacement.  
Date: 09/19/2017
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
What's New in Hip Replacement..
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
BACKGROUND: The authors of recent studies have reported newly devised implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds to predict adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) in patients who have undergone unilateral or bilateral metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty. These thresholds were most effective for identifying patients at low risk of ARMD. We investigated whether these newly devised blood metal ion thresholds could effectively identify patients at risk of ARMD after MoM hip arthroplasty in an external cohort of patients. METHODS: We performed a validation study involving 803 MoM hip arthroplasties (323 unilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing [BHR], 93 bilateral BHR, and 294 unilateral Corail-Pinnacle implants) performed in 710 patients at 3 European centers. All patients underwent whole-blood metal ion sampling, and were divided into 2 groups: those with ARMD (leading to revision or identified on imaging; n = 75) and those without ARMD (n = 635). Previously devised implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds (2.15 μg/L of cobalt for unilateral BHR; 5.5 μg/L for the maximum of either cobalt or chromium for bilateral BHR; and 3.57 μg/L of cobalt for unilateral Corail-Pinnacle implants) were applied to the validation cohort, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to establish the discriminatory characteristics of each threshold. RESULTS: The area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the ability of each implant-specific threshold to distinguish between patients with and without ARMD were, respectively, 89.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82.8% to 96.0%), 78.9%, 86.7%, 44.1%, and 96.9% for unilateral BHR; 89.2% (CI = 81.3% to 97.1%), 70.6%, 86.8%, 54.5%, and 93.0% for bilateral BHR; and 76.9% (CI = 63.9% to 90.0%), 65.0%, 85.4%, 24.5%, and 97.1% for unilateral Corail-Pinnacle implants. Using the implant-specific thresholds, we missed 20 patients with ARMD (2.8% of the patients in this series). We missed more patients with ARMD when we used the fixed thresholds proposed by regulatory authorities: 35 (4.9%) when we used the U.K. threshold of 7 μg/L for both cobalt and chromium (p = 0.0003), 21 (3.0%) when we used the U.S. threshold of 3 μg/L for both cobalt and chromium (p = 1.0), and 46 (6.5%) when we used the U.S. threshold of 10 μg/L for both cobalt and chromium (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This external multicenter validation study confirmed that patients with blood metal ion levels below new implant-specific thresholds have a low risk of ARMD after MoM hip arthroplasty. Using these implant-specific thresholds, we missed fewer patients with ARMD compared with when the thresholds currently proposed by regulatory authorities were used. We therefore recommend using implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds when managing patients who have undergone MoM hip arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
ARMD and Presumed Dangerous. Commentary on an article by Gulraj S. Matharu, BSc(Hons), MRCS, MRes, et al.: "Blood Metal Ion Thresholds to Identify Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants at Risk of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris. An External Multicenter Validation Study of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing and Corail-Pinnacle Implants.
Due to dramatic improvements in life expectancy we are seeing a rapidly growing population of older people. Increasing frailty and susceptibility to fragility fractures are becoming pressing issues for both the individuals that suffer them as well as society, through pressures on health and social care budgets. The success of fracture liaison services, co-ordinated programmes enhancing the management of the fracture, osteoporosis, frailty and falls risk, is undisputed. To achieve optimal outcomes, however, it is important to have a standardisation of design, scope and structure of the service. Experience has taught us that by delegating responsibility for the holistic care of the patient to a trained and adequately resourced professional/team (fracture prevention practitioner) with clear standards against which benchmarking occurs, is the optimal model of delivery. Future challenges include how best to measure the success of services in imparting a reduction in fractures at a local population level as well as how to detect those patients with unmet need who do not uniformly present to health care services, such as those with vertebral fractures. The implementation of fracture liaison services however, is a clear demonstration of how collaboration between health care, social care and charity organisations, among others, has materially improved the health and well-being of the population.
Muscular and Skeletal Diseases (3)
Osteoporosis (2), more mentions
Journal of sports sciences 
Differences in hamstring activation during each divided phases and in the hip and knee joint angles and torques at each time point of the sprinting gait cycle were determined between two sprints. During the early stance of the acceleration sprint, the hip extension torque was significantly greater than during the maximum-speed sprint, and the relative EMG activation of the ...
The American journal of sports medicine
BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy for the treatment of intra-articular pathology is a rapidly expanding field. Outcome measures should be reported to document the efficacy of arthroscopic procedures; however, the most effective outcome measures are not established. PURPOSE: To evaluate the variability in outcomes reported after hip arthroscopy and to compare the responsiveness of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We reviewed primary hip arthroscopy literature between January 2011 and September 2016 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Patient and study characteristics were recorded. Pre- and postoperative means and SDs of PROs were recorded from articles that used 2 or more PROs with a 1-year minimum follow-up. From this subset of articles, we compared the responsiveness between PRO instruments using the effect size, standard response mean, and relative efficiency. RESULTS: We identified 130 studies that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria, which totaled 16,970 patients (17,511 hips, mean age = 37.0 years, mean body mass index = 25.9 kg/m(2)). Radiographic measures were reported in 100 studies. The alpha angle and center-edge angle were the most common measures. Range of motion was reported in 81 of 130 articles. PROs were reported in 129 of 130 articles, and 21 different PRO instruments were identified. The mean number of PROs per article was 3.2, and 78% used 2 or more PROs. The most commonly used PRO was the modified Harris Hip Score, followed by the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living, HOS-Sport, visual analog scale, and Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS). The 2 most responsive PRO tools were the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT)-12 and the NAHS. CONCLUSION: Outcomes reporting is highly variable in the hip arthroscopy literature. More than 20 different PRO instruments have been used, which makes comparison across studies difficult. A uniform set of outcome measures would allow for clearer interpretation of the hip arthroscopy literature and offer potential conclusions from pooled data. On the basis of our comparative responsiveness results and previously reported psychometric properties of the different PRO instruments, we recommend more widespread adoption of the iHOT PROs instruments to assess hip arthroscopy outcomes.
Anti-Obesity and Weight Loss (1), more mentions
Arthritis care & research
... the extent to which physical activity (PA) changes following total knee or hip joint replacement relative to pain, physical function and quality of life... to pain, quality of life and physical function after total knee or hip joint replacement.We searched PubMed (Medline), Embase and Cinahl, for peer-reviewed, English-language ...