PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Cleland

Publications and source records attributed to D Cleland.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Metal-on-metal versus polyethylene in hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial.

A prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial was done to evaluate polyethylene versus metal bearing surfaces in total hip replacement. Forty-one patients were randomized to receive either a metal (23 patients) or a polyethylene (18 patients) insert. The femoral and acetabular components were identical with the acetabular insert the only variable. Patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively using radiographs, multiple outcome measures (Western Ontario MacMaster University Score, Harris hip score, Short Form-12), erythrocyte metal ion analysis (cobalt, chromium, titanium), and urine metal ion analysis (cobalt, chromium, titanium). Patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years (mean 3.2 years; range, 2.2-3.9 years). There were no differences in radiographic outcomes or outcome measurement tools between patients. Patients receiving a metal-on-metal articulation had significantly elevated erythrocyte and urine metal ions compared with patients receiving a polyethylene insert. Patients who had metal-on-metal inserts had on average a 7.9-fold increase in erythrocyte cobalt, a 2.3-fold increase in erythrocyte chromium, a 1.7-fold increase in erythrocyte titanium, a 35.1-fold increase in urine cobalt, a 17.4-fold increase in urine chromium, and a 2.6-fold increase in urine titanium at 2 years followup. Patients receiving a polyethylene insert had no change in erythrocyte titanium, urine cobalt, or urine chromium and a 1.5-fold increase in erythrocyte cobalt, a 2.2-fold increase in erythrocyte chromium, and a 4.2-fold increase in urine titanium. Forty-one percent of patients receiving metal-on-metal articulations had increasing metal ion levels at the latest followup.

Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip↗

Posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining total knee replacement: a randomized study.

A randomized controlled study was done to compare the clinical, radiographic, and quality of life outcomes between posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining primary total knee implants. One hundred forty-three patients were enrolled in the study. Patients ranged in age from 57 to 89 years, had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis, and an intact functioning posterior cruciate ligament. Patients were excluded if they had a flexion contracture greater than 15 degrees, a varus deformity greater than 20 degrees, or a valgus deformity greater than 15 degrees. Patients were randomized to one of two study groups, posterior-stabilized AMK total knee implants (76 patients) or cruciate-retaining AMK total knee implants (67 patients). One hundred eight patients have had a minimum 2-year followup including 57 patients in the posterior-stabilized group and 51 patients in the cruciate-retaining group. Seventy-three patients have had a minimum 3-year followup including 37 patients in the posterior stabilized group and 36 patients in the cruciate-retaining group. The overall total Knee Society clinical rating score at 2 years averaged 157.1 points in the posterior-stabilized group and 156.5 points in the cruciate-retaining group. At 3 years, the scores averaged 156.8 points in the posterior-stabilized group and 163.5 points in the cruciate-retaining group. The range of motion component of the Knee Society score averaged 113.6 degrees for the posterior-stabilized group and 108.5 degrees for the cruciate-retaining group at 2 years, and 108.3 degrees in the cruciate-retaining group and 108.5 degrees in the posterior-stabilized group. Based on the various parameters analyzed, there were no notable differences between the groups with a posterior-stabilized and a cruciate-retaining total knee implant at 2 years. This trend seemed to be the same at 3 years.

Aged↗