Author/Editor     Smrke, Dragica; Beden, Robert; Stankovski, Vlado
Title     Bipolar versus total hip endoprosthesis: functional results
Type     članek
Source     Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Vol. and No.     Letnik 120
Publication year     2000
Volume     str. 259-61
Language     eng
Abstract     Some functional parameters of the hip-joint 3.3 years on average (range 2-8.6 years) after hip arthroplasty are compared with regard to two types of hip endoprostheses: the total (TEP) and the bipolar (BPEP). Flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, and internal and external rotation were measured for 75 patients with BPEP type Self-Locking, for 11 patients with BPEP type Vario-Cup, and for 43 with TEP type Lubinus. One-way analysis of variance with respect to co-variances was used for statistical testing of the measured data. It was found that flexion, abduction and adduction were significantly higher in the BPEP endoprosthesis (P < 0.05). The results obtained are favourable for the bipolar hip endoprosthesis, and they can be related to the biomechanical differences between both types of hip endoprosthesis. The functional parameters of the hip; such as extension flexion; abduction, adduction, internal rotation and external rotation could be related to the biomechanical characteristics of the implanted hip endoprostheses. The assessment of the differences in these parameters among patients with different types of implanted hip endoprosthesis can provide additional objective criteria for clinical judgement in the case of primary treatment of acute medial femoral neck fractures (5). Obviously; better functional parameters can represent a better range of motion and accordingly a better quality of life for the patient (3, 4). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether there are any important differences between BPEP and TEP regarding the functional parameters.
Descriptors     HIP PROSTHESIS
HIP JOINT
BIOMECHANICS
RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR
AGED
TREATMENT OUTCOME
FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
PAIN
GAIT
WALKING
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE