Skip to main content

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

  • Original Article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Femoral-head vascularity after hip surface arthroplasty

Abstract

Background

Iatrogenic devascularization of the femoral head is as an area of concern following hip resurfacing arthroplasty, with probable implications on short-term failure and long-term survival of the implant.

Materials and methods

We assessed the vascularity of 25 resurfaced femoral heads in 20 patients by comparison with preoperative and postoperative Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate (MDP) bone scintigraphy images, the postoperative scans being done 9 months after the surgery.

Results

Eight out of 25 hips (32%) showed <55% of their preoperative uptake at a mean of 9 months after surgery and were categorized as showing reduced vascularity.

Conclusion

Our study reveals reduction in vascularity of the femoral-head remnant as a frequent occurrence after hip resurfacing. Our study also highlights the role of bone scintigraphy as tool in assessing the vascularity of resurfaced femoral heads.

Introduction

The current-generation hip hybrid surface arthroplasty with metal-on-metal bearings has produced promising short- and medium-term results [16] and has been growing in popularity over the last decade [6]. The advances in metallurgy and design implant design and in surgical technique are believed to be responsible for the renaissance of hip resurfacing. This bone-conserving procedure [7, 8] with additional advantages of easier revision [9, 10], preservation of proximal femoral bone density [11], reduced dislocation rates [2, 3], and more precise biomechanical reconstruction [12] holds promise as a viable alternative to total hip arthroplasty, especially in young, active individuals who are likely to outlive a primary hip arthroplasty. Being unique in concept and design, surface arthroplasty has its own set of unique complications. Fracture of the femoral neck [1, 6, 1318], component loosening [1, 17, 18], osteonecrosis of the femoral head [1722], metal ion hypersensitivity, and raised level of circulating metal ions [18, 2325] are the most important complications of hip resurfacing. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head caused by the operative exposure and technique, with subsequent failure of the implant, has been a source of concern since the evolution of surface arthroplasty [1722]. We assessed the vascularity of the resurfaced femoral heads by comparing preoperative and postoperative Tc-99m bone scintigraphy, with the acquisition of planar and single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT) images. This, to our knowledge, is the first study assessing semiquantitatively the vascularity of the remnant head on Tc-99m bone scintigraphy images by comparison with preoperative status, taking into account attenuation produced by the implant.

Materials and methods

We did a prospective, longitudinal, follow-up study of a consecutive cohort of 25 resurfaced hips in 20 patients (15 men and five women). Approval of the ethics committee and informed consent from all patients were obtained. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles contained in the Declaration of Helsinki. The primary diagnoses included avascular necrosis in 11 hips, ankylosing spondylitis in seven, rheumatoid arthritis in four, spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia in two, and seronegative inflammatory arthritis in one. Hips with avascular necrosis with cysts >1 cm in diameter detectable on radiographs were considered unsuitable for surface arthroplasty. The mean age of the cohort was 39 (range 19–72) years. All except one patient were younger than 55 years of age. All surgeries were performed by the senior author (RM). Surface arthroplasty was performed by the posterior approach with the release of the obturator internus and gemelli about 1 cm from their insertion, with the additional release of quadratus femoris, if required. Dissection in the region of the femoral neck was avoided to minimize damage to the retinacular vessels. The articular surface replacement (ASR) implant system (Depuy International Ltd, Leeds, UK) was used in all patients. After reaming the head, areas of sclerotic bone were drilled to improve cement penetration. Femoral-head cysts <1 cm in diameter were resected and filled with cancellous bone from the reaming residue. The prepared femoral head was carefully scrutinized to rule out lateral neck notching before implantation of the prosthesis. Before cement application, suction was applied through a vent on the femur at the level of the lesser trochanter. The trabecular bone of the head was cleaned by pulsed lavage to increase interdigitation of the cement. A small amount of high-viscosity hand-mixed cement (CMW, Depuy) was applied by finger packing to the reamed head, and all excess cement was removed from the most proximal surface of the prepared femoral head to ensure correct seating of the component. Patients were initiated on weight bearing from the second postoperative day.

In order to ensure meaningful comparison of preoperative and postoperative scintigraphy images, the attenuation of radiation produced by the ASR system was estimated by an in vitro study. A hollow plastic tube was filled with a radionuclide at concentration of 5 μCi/ml, and one end of the tube was covered by the ASR system. The whole of this assembly was immersed in the radionuclide at a lower concentration of 0.5 μCi/ml to simulate the background soft-tissue radiation. The assembly was scanned using a dual-head gamma camera with high-resolution collimator (Fig. 1), and planar and SPECT images were acquired. The images were analyzed using the eNTEGRA (GE, Haifa, Israel) nuclear medicine workstation. Gamma radiation counts per pixel were obtained (1) from the portion of the plastic tube covered by the implant and (2) from the portion of the region of the plastic tube not covered by the implant. The ratio of the above counts would represent the percentage of radiation that is allowed to pass through it by the implant. The study was repeated three times and the mean ratio obtained. We found that the ASR system allowed 35% [mean 35% (33.4–37.2%,n = 3)] of radiation to pass through it.

Fig. 1
figure 1

A hollow plastic tube filled with radionuclide and covered at one end by the ASR system. The assembly scanned using a dual-head gamma camera shows the attenuation produced by the implant at the end covered by it. Counts revealed that only 35% of the radiation passed through the implant

In the study participants, three-phase Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate (MDP) bone scintigraphy was performed preoperatively and postoperatively at 9 months after the surgery. Twenty mCi of Tc-99m-labeled MDP was injected intravenously and a standard three-phase bone scintigraphy carried out, with the acquisition of planar and SPECT images. The delayed images were obtained after an interval of 3 h following radionuclide injection. The femoral head was divided into four quadrants, and a region of interest (ROI) curve was drawn in each quadrant. The gamma radiation count per pixel in each quadrant was obtained. The measurements were done thrice in each quadrant and mean value computed. All measurements were made by the same author (CSB) in a blinded manner using the eNTEGRA system. Counts from the femoral-head remnants (covered by the ASR system) in the postoperative images were multiplied by 2.85 (which is equal to 1/0.35) to correct for attenuation produced by the implant. The ratio of counts from the resurfaced femoral head (after correction for attenuation produced by the implant) to counts from the femoral head in the preoperative scintigraphy image was computed. Radioactive tracer uptake in the resurfaced head was expressed as a percentage of preoperative uptake. Microvascular perfusion being a chief determinant of radionuclide uptake [26], a decrease in postoperative uptake compared with preoperative uptake would imply reduced vascularity of the remnant head. In addition to bone scintigraphy evaluation, the Harris Hip Score (HHS) was calculated preoperatively and postoperatively at 9 months by the same author (AK) to assess patients’ clinical status. Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained routinely in all patients. The coronal plane orientation of the femoral component was noted, and those with valgus orientation of the femoral stem >10° with respect to the central axis of the femoral neck were deemed to have high valgus positioning.

Results

Eight of 25 hips showed <55% of the preoperative uptake, whereas 17 of 25 hips showed >70% of the preoperative uptake in bone scintigraphy studies done 9 months after the resurfacing procedure (Table 1). None of the hips showed between 55% and 70% of the preoperative uptake. In the absence of any previous data on what constitutes a critical reduction in vascularity, we categorized those showing <55% of the preoperative uptake as those exhibiting reduced vascularity (Fig. 2) and those showing >70% as those with preserved vascularity (Fig. 3) on the basis of clustering seen in our study. Thus, eight of 25 hips (32%) were categorized as exhibiting reduced vascularity. Of these, four had osteonecrosis with secondary osteoarthritis, three inflammatory arthritis, and one spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia as the primary diagnosis. There were no cases of lateral neck notching or high valgus positioning. Mean postoperative HHS was 96 (range 85–100) in those showing reduced vascularity compared with 95 (range 85–100) in those showing preserved vascularity. There were no complications – namely, femoral-neck fracture, component loosening, or pain of unknown cause.

Table 1 Results
Fig. 2
figure 2

Preoperative bone scintigraphy image and radiograph of a patient with ankylosing spondylitis (a); postoperative images 8 months after surgery (b). Surface arthroplasty was planned on the right side but could not be carried because the left hip could not be dislocated. The resurfaced head showed 38% of the preoperative uptake (after correction for attenuation) and was categorized as showing reduced vascularity

Fig. 3
figure 3

Preoperative bone scintigraphy image of a patient who underwent resurfacing of both the hips (a); postoperative image at 6 months after surgery (b). The right femoral head showed 116% of the preoperative uptake, whereas the left showed 74% of the preoperative uptake (after correction for attenuation). Both resurfaced heads were categorized as showing preserved vascularity

Discussion

Osteonecrosis of the femoral head remnant is postulated as a causative mechanism in femoral-neck fracture and femoral component loosening, the two most common modes of failure following hip resurfacing [17]. Evidence of osteonecrosis has been found in failed resurfacings by various authors [1722]. Insult to the vascular supply of the remnant head might occur at various steps of the resurfacing procedure [27]. Using the posterior approach results in sacrifice of the deep branch of the medial circumflex femoral artery, the chief source of blood supply to the majority of the femoral head. The retinacular vessels may be damaged during head preparation with the reamers at their point of entry into the vascular foramina at the junction of the head and neck. The retinacular vessels can also be damaged because of lateral neck notching, excess valgus positioning of the femoral component, or during removal of osteophytes around the neck. Freeman postulated that most of the blood supply to the arthritic femoral head comes from intraosseous vessels rather than the subsynovial vessels at the surface of the femoral neck [28]. This change in the pattern of blood supply is believed to offer protection against osteonecrosis after hip resurfacing. However, when in the arthritic process the blood-flow pattern changes and to what extent it changes is not known. Intraoperative measurements of blood flow using laser Doppler flowmetry and of oxygen concentration using electrodes have convincingly demonstrated the adverse influence of the surgical approach and head preparation on the vascularity of the femoral head [2931]. A reduction in oxygen concentration in the femoral head of up to 60% with the exposure and a further 20% reduction with head preparation were demonstrated by Steffen et al. [29] using electrodes inserted into the femoral head during hip resurfacing. Beaulé et al. [30] measured blood flow in the femoral head in 14 hips undergoing total hip replacement surgery, which had simulation of neck notching after a lateral approach. Ten of the 14 arthritic femoral heads demonstrated >50% decrease in femoral blood flow, highlighting the effect of notching on the blood supply to the femoral head. In a separate study, Beaulé et al. [31] assessed the impact of femoral-head preparation during hip resurfacing on blood flow to the femoral head. They used the trochanteric flip approach of Ganz to ensure that extra-osseous supply was not compromised by surgical exposure and any reduction in blood flow to the femoral head (measured using laser Doppler flowmetry) could be attributed to damage caused by femoral-head preparation. Nine of ten hips with osteoarthritis showed a mean reduction in blood flow by 70%. Posterior approach has been shown to have a more detrimental effect on femoral-head vascularity than the anterolateral and trochanteric flip approaches [32, 33]. However, bone scintigraphy evaluation of patients who had undergone resurfacing by the posterior approach, performed at a mean 26 months postoperatively by McMahon et al. [34], revealed no evidence of reduced vascularity in the remnant head. Similarly, PET evaluation of patients who had undergone resurfacing by a modified anterolateral approach, performed at a mean of 20 months postoperatively, revealed no evidence of reduced vascularity in the remnant head [35]. These studies probably indicate that the femoral heads had maintained their vascularity or had become completely revascularized by the natural healing process of creeping substitution by 20–26 months. Thus, a scintigraphy study done as late as 20 months after surgery, with the healing process in a devascularized head at an advanced stage, may not identify the resurfaced heads that sustained a vascular insult at the time of the surgery. We assessed the vascularity of the remnant head at an earlier time period of 9 months, with due consideration for the time required for the subsidence of postoperative changes. Bone scintigraphy studies in asymptomatic patients with cemented total hip replacement have revealed that raised postoperative activity around the shaft of the prosthesis, but for a small area near the tip of the prosthesis, subsided by 6 months from the surgery [36]. In the absence of studies assessing the duration for which postoperative changes persist on bone scintigraphy after hip resurfacing, data from studies on cemented total hip replacements were extrapolated. Demonstration of femoral-head remnant viability in this time period also assumes importance in view of the evidence of osteonecrosis found in cases with late fracture of the femoral neck at a mean duration of 12.4 months after surgery [17].

Our study revealed reduced vascularity as a frequent occurrence in resurfaced femoral heads. In the absence of lateral neck notching or excess valgus positioning in any of our patients, the use of the posterior approach and damage to the retinacular vessels during femoral-head preparation by reaming might have been the responsible for reduced vascularity noted in our patients. There were no clinically evident complications at the short follow-up available. However, evaluation of the influence of reduced vascularity on occurrence of complications and survival of the prosthesis need a longer follow-up.

Masking of the femoral-head remnant by the implant creates difficulty in assessing the status of the femoral-head remnant. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radionuclide bone scintigraphy have been widely used as imaging modalities in the diagnosis of osteonecrosis. However, in a patient who has undergone hip resurfacing, the presence of the implant creates artifacts despite the fact that the implant is MR-compatible and precludes the use of MRI to assess the vascularity of the remnant head. The use of laser Doppler flowmetry to measure the blood flow or insertion of electrodes in the remnant head to measure oxygen concentration are invasive procedures and not feasible in the postoperative period. In this context, radionuclide bone scintigraphy assumes importance as a method of evaluating the vascularity of the remnant head.

We, by means of our in vitro study, found that 35% of the gamma radiation passes through the ASR implant and is detectable on scintigraphy. In a study by McMahon et al. [34], the attenuation was measured by an in vitro study that found that 74% of the radiation passed through the implant. The implant used in their study was the BHR system. The differences in the design and metallurgy of the two implants are likely to have caused the different attenuations observed in the two studies.

Limitations

Small sample size and short follow-up limit the conclusions that can be drawn from our work. The other limitation was the absence of a control group (in the form of a cohort of patients operated through anterolateral or trochanteric flip approach) that might have shown the influence, if any, of posterior approach on the remnant head vascularity. Preponderance of bilateral hip disease rendered comparison with the contralateral hip inapplicable in a majority of the cases. The inclusion of patients of diverse etiologies, in whom the disease process might have an influence on tracer uptake, was another limitation. However, as each patient served as his or her own control, we believe that assessment of vascularity of the resurfaced heads relative to the preoperative status rendered the interpretations meaningful. The distribution of etiology in our cohort, with the absence of primary osteoarthritis as the primary etiology in any of them, is similar to the distribution noted in reports on total hip arthroplasty from our population [3740] and is reflective of the relative rarity of primary hip osteoarthritis in our population. The issue of inclusion of patients with osteonecrosis with secondary osteoarthritis was carefully analyzed. Decreased uptake on bone scintigraphy is a feature seen only in the early stages of osteonecrosis, whereas those in advanced stages with secondary osteoarthritic changes are known to exhibit increased rather than decreased uptakes on bone scintigraphy [41]. Patients with osteonecrosis were in an advanced stage of the disease with secondary osteoarthritic changes at the time of surgery. None of them showed reduced uptakes in the preoperative images. Hence, in patients with osteonecrosis, decreased uptake on postoperative scintigraphy is attributable to the devascularization induced by the operative procedure rather than to the disease process. Therefore, inclusion of patients with osteonecrosis is unlikely to have caused the decreased uptake noted postoperatively in our study group.

We conclude that reduction in vascularity of the femoral head remnant is a frequent occurrence after surface arthroplasty of the hip and is therefore a matter of concern in those undergoing hip resurfacing. Longer follow-up of a larger patient cohort is required to draw a clinically useful inference. Our study also highlights the role of bone scintigraphy in assessing vascularity of the femoral-head remnant. In conjunction with studies on blood flow and oxygen concentration in the femoral head during hip resurfacing, our study supports the need for continued emphasis on vascularity-sparing techniques during resurfacing until the implications of devascularization of the remnant head on implant survival and complication occurrence are firmly established.

References

  1. Amstutz HC, Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA (2004) Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 86:28–39

    Google Scholar 

  2. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ (2004) Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 86:177–184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB (2005) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 87:167–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Back DL, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A (2005) Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 87:324–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nishii T, Sugano N, Miki H, Takao M, Koyama T, Yoshikawa H (2007) Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty 22:176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Australian Orthopaedic Association (2007) National joint replacement registry annual report. AOA, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

  7. Crawford JR, Palmer SJ, Wimhurst JA, Villar RN (2005) Bone loss at hip resurfacing: a comparison with total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 15:195–198

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Girard J, Roy AG (2006) A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 88:997–1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Capello WN, Trancik TM, Misamore G, Eaton R (1982) Analysis of revision surgery of resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 170:50–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC (2007) Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 89:735–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kishida Y, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Yamaguchi K, Yoshikawa H (2004) Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 86:185–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG (2006) Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 88:721–726

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Beaule PE, Le Duff M, Campbell P et al (2004) Metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty with a cemented femoral component: a 7–10 year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 19(Suppl 3):17–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pearson AM, Fognet P, Little C (2005) Can we prevent fractures in hip resurfacing? J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 87-B(Suppl 1):41

    Google Scholar 

  15. Shimmin AJ, Back D (2005) Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 87-B:463–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Amstutz HC, Campbell PA, Le Duff MJ (2004) Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 86:1874–1877

    Google Scholar 

  17. Campbell P, Beaulé P, Ebramzadeh E, LeDuff M, Smet K, Lu Z, Amstutz HC (2006) A study of implant failure in metal-on-metal surface arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:35–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shimmin AJ, Bare J, Back DL (2005) Complications associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 36:187–193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bradley GW, Freeman MA, Revell PA (1987) Resurfacing arthroplasty. Femoral head viability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 220:137–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Howie DW, Cornish BL, Vernon-Roberts B (1993) The viability of the femoral head after resurfacing hip arthroplasty in humans. Clin Orthop Relat Res 291:171–184

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Campbell P, Mirra J, Amstutz HC (2000) Viability of femoral heads treated with resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 15(1):120–122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Little CP, Ruiz AL, Harding IJ, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Murray DW, Athanasou NA (2005) Osteonecrosis in retrieved femoral heads after failed resurfacing arthroplasty in the hip. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 87-B:320–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gawkrodger DJ (2003) Metal sensitivities and orthopaedic implants revisited: the potential for metal allergy with the new metal-on-metal joint prostheses. Br J Dermatol 148:1089–1093

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ (2001) Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 83:428–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Campbell P, Shimmin A, Walter L, Solomon M (2008) Metal sensitivity as a cause of groin pain in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty 23(7):1080–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Storey G, Murray IPC (2004) Bone Scintigraphy: the procedure and interpretation. In: Ell PJ, Gambhir SS (eds) Nuclear Medicine in Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment, 3rd edn. Churchill Livingstone, New York, p 600

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lavigne M, Kalhor M, Beck M, Ganz R, Leunig M (2005) Distribution of vascular foramina around the femoral head and neck junction: relevance for conservative intracapsular procedures of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am 36:171–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Freeman MA (1978) Some anatomical and mechanical considerations relevant to the surface replacement of the femoral head. Clin Orthop Relat Res 134:19–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Steffen RT, Smith SR, Urban JP, McClardy-Smith P, Beard DJ, Gill HS, Murray DW (2005) The effect of hip resurfacing on oxygen concentration in the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 87:1468–1474

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Beaule PE, Campbell PA, Hoke R, Dorey FJ (2006) Notching of the femoral neck during resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a vascular study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 88:35–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Beaulé PE, Campbell P, Shim P (2007) Femoral head blood flow during hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 456:148–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Khan A, Yates A, Lovering A, Bannister GC, Spencer R (2007) The effect of surgical approach on blood flow to the femoral head during resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 89-B(1):21–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Amarasekera HW, Costa ML, Foguet P, Krikler SJ, Prakash U, Griffin DR (2008) The blood flow to the femoral head/neck junction during resurfacing arthroplasty. A comparison of two approaches using laser Doppler flowmetry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(4):442–445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McMahon SJ, Young D, Ballok Z, Badaruddin BS, Larbpaiboonpong V, Hawdon G (2006) Vascularity of the Femoral Head After Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. A Technetium Tc 99m Bone Scan/Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Study. J Arthroplasty 21(4):514–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Forrest N, Welch A, Murray AD, Schweiger L, Hutchison J, Ashcroft GP (2006) Femoral head viability after birmingham resurfacing hip arthroplasty: assessment with use of [18F] fluoride positron emission tomography. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 88:84–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Utz JA, Lull RJ, Calvin EC (1986) Asymptomatic total hip prosthesis: natural history determined using Tc-99m mdp bone scans. Radiology 161:509–512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Siwach RC, Kadyan VS, Sangwan SS, Gupta R (2007) A retrospective study of total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop 41:62–66

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bhan S, Pankaj A, Malhotra R (2006) One or two stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomised, controlled study in an Asian population. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(3):298–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dhaon BK, Nigam V, Jaiswal A, Jain V (2005) Clinical and radiological evaluation of hybrid hip replacement in various disorders of hip. Indian J Orthop 39:90–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dhaon BK, Nigam V, Jaiswal A, Jain V (2005) Noncemented total hip replacement in various disorders of hip. Indian J Orthop 39:225–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mitchell DC, Rao VM, Dalinka MK, Spritzer CE, Alavi A, Fallon M, Kressel HY (1987) Femoral head avascular necrosis: correlation of mr imaging, radiographic staging, radionuclide imaging, and clinical findings. Radiology 162:709–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajesh Malhotra.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kannan, A., Bal, C.S., Kumar, V. et al. Femoral-head vascularity after hip surface arthroplasty. J Orthopaed Traumatol 11, 221–227 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-010-0107-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-010-0107-x

Keywords