ReCap® Femoral Resurfacing System
Replacement of the diseased surface of the femoral head while simultaneously restoring the normal anatomy and biomechanical function.
The ReCap® Femoral Resurfacing System replaces the diseased surface of the femoral head and is designed to restore the normal anatomy and biomechanical function of the hip joint.
The major advantage of the ReCap® Femoral Resurfacing System is its conservative nature. By avoiding medullary canal intrusion, it preserves valuable femoral bone stock, making it a bone-preserving alternative to total hip arthroplasty. A 2006 study published by Girard, J. et al. in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British) concluded that a group of young patients with femoral hemi-resurfacing were able to maintain a higher average activity level versus a similar group of patients who received a total hip arthroplasty1. Results suggest that improved resurfacing results may be attributed to the following:
- Reduced pain and quicker recovery time from hemi-resurfacing surgery
- Precision fitting of the hemi-resurfacing component to the size of the acetabulum
- Traditional design with a cylindrical stem that extends beyond the shell
- Precise congruity between the prosthesis and the acetabular cartilage
- As-cast, high carbon/high carbide, CoCr substrate for wear resistance
- Highly polished bearing surface helps minimize wear of acetabulum
- Large range of femoral resurfacing heads in one millimeter increments to help produce a precise anatomical fit
- Press-fit and cemented resurfacing heads available in sizes 38mm-60mm
- Accurate and reproducible ReCap® instrumentation to simplify the surgical technique and reduce operating time
New ReCap® KS Alignment Device: An Evolution in Resurfacing
Femoral component positioning is vital to the success of hip resurfacing.2,3Current devices on the market for guide pin placement often require a considerable amount of visualization and user experience to allow for accurate guide pin placement. The new ReCap® KS Alignment Device has demonstrated:
- Reproducible and reliable implant positioning
- Consistent placement of the ReCap® femoral implant within acceptable limits pre-determined by computer aided navigation during extensive cadaver testing4
- No significant difference in implant positioning between an inexperienced surgeon that used the alignment device to implant a ReCap® femoral component and an experienced surgeon that used navigation5
- Large diameter head lowers potential for risk of dislocation6
- Minimal bone resection preserves bone for the future
- No polyethylene articulating surface greatly reduces risk of osteolysis
- Minimizes risk of leg length discrepancies by more accurately reproducing the patient's original anatomy
For osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), studies have shown femoral resurfacing to be more successful than methods such as osteotomy, core decompression and vascularized fibular grafting (See chart).
ReCap® Total Hip Resurfacing System- Clinical Trial
The Biomet® ReCap® Total Hip Resurfacing System clinical trial is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of this research study is to determine the safety and effectiveness of a total resurfacing system utilizing a ReCap® Femoral Resurfacing Component and an M2a-Magnum™ Acetabular Shell.
ReCap® is a trademark of Biomet Manufacturing Corp.
- Girard, J. et al. Biomechanical Reconstruction of the Hip. A Randomised Study Comparing Total Hip Resurfacing and Total Hip Arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British). 88-B: 721-26, 2006.
- Freeman, M.A. Some Anatomical and Mechanical Considerations Relevant to the Surface Replacement of the Femoral Head. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 134: 19-24, 1978.
- Schimmin, A.J. Femoral Neck Fractures Following Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British). 87-B: 463-64, 2005.
- Phadnis, A. et al. Validation of a Femoral Resurfacing Alignment Device Using Computer Aided Navigation. Study. 2006.
- Phadnis, A. et al. Femoral Resurfacing Component Position Using an Alignment Device Versus Computer Aided Navigation.
- Cuckler, J.M. et al. Large Versus Small Femoral Heads in Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty. 19(8 Suppl 3): 41-44, 2004.
- Plakseychuk, A.Y. et al. Vascularized Compared with Nonvascularized Fibular Grafting for the Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 85-A(4): 589-96, 2003. Study. 2006.
- Hernigou, P. et al. Treatment of Osteonecrosis with Autologous Bone Marrow Grafting. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research. 405: 14-23, 2002.
- Mont, M.A. et al. Core Decompression Versus Non-operative Management for Osteonecrosis of the Hip. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 324: 169-78, 1996.
- Simank, H.G. et al. Comparison of Results of Core Decompression and Intertrochanteric Osteotomy for Nontraumatic Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head Using Cox Regression and Survivorship Analysis. Journal of Arthroplasty. 16(6): 794-94, 2001.
- Urbaniak, J.R. et al. Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head with Free Vascularized Fibular Grafting. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 77-A(5): 681-94, 1995.
- Frank, et al. Uncemented Surface Replacement for Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. Acta Orthopaedica Scandanavica. 60(4): 425-29, 1989.
- Hungerford, D.S. et al. Surface Replacement Hemiarthroplasty for the Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 80-A(11): 1656-64, 1998.
- Mont, M.A. et al. Outcomes of Limited Femoral Resurfacing Arthroplasty Compared with Total Hip Arthroplasty for Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. Journal of Arthroplasty. 16(8 Suppl 1): 134-39, 2001.
- Scott, R.D. et al. Use of TARA Hemiarthroplasty in Advanced Osteonecrosis. Journal of Arthroplasty. 2(3): 225-32, 1987.