Literature DB >> 11740749

Technical factors for success with metal ring acetabular reconstruction.

P Udomkiat1, L D Dorr, Y Y Won, D Longjohn, Z Wan.   

Abstract

Sixty-four hips in 62 patients were revised with a Mueller ring (28 hips), Ganz ring (18 hips), and Burch-Schneider cage (18 hips) under the direction of a single surgeon. A polyethylene cup was cemented into the metal support of all hips. Average follow-up was 4.6 years (range, 2.0-6.7 years). Six rings were revised because of aseptic loosening, and 5 others were radiographically loose, for a mechanical failure rate of 11 of 64 (17%). Acetabular metal ring supports failed by migration when defects of > or =60% of the superior weight-bearing bone were filled by only cement or particulate graft. At the time of surgery, the superior rim of the metal support should be against host-bone for 60% of its support, and if not, the use of bulk allograft, rather than particulate graft, is required. Dislocation was the second failure mechanism identified, and this occurred in 15 hips (23%), with reoperation required in 5 hips (8%). A constrained liner should be used in patients with nonunion of the trochanter and preoperative abductor weakness that grades fair/minus or worse as measured by the side-lying abduction test.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11740749     DOI: 10.1054/arth.2001.27669

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  20 in total

1.  High failure rate with the GAP II ring and impacted allograft bone in severe acetabular defects.

Authors:  Martin A Buttaro; Diego Muñoz de la Rosa; Fernando Comba; Francisco Piccaluga
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Acetabular cage survival and analysis of factors related to failure.

Authors:  Jonathan N Sembrano; Edward Y Cheng
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  A review of the treatment of pelvic discontinuity.

Authors:  M Villanueva; A Rios-Luna; J Pereiro De Lamo; H Fahandez-Saddi; M P G Böstrom
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2008-07-15

4.  [Exchange of acetabular cups with severe bone defects using antiprotrusion cages].

Authors:  Bernd Fink; Alexandra Grossmann; Pavel Sebena
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.154

5.  The use of fibre-based demineralised bone matrix in major acetabular reconstruction: surgical technique and preliminary results.

Authors:  Moussa Hamadouche; Mathieu Karoubi; Valérie Dumaine; Jean Pierre Courpied
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Custom Acetabular Cages Offer Stable Fixation and Improved Hip Scores for Revision THA With Severe Bone Defects.

Authors:  Huiwu Li; Xinhua Qu; Yuanqing Mao; Kerong Dai; Zhenan Zhu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Acetabular distraction: an alternative for severe defects with chronic pelvic discontinuity?

Authors:  Scott M Sporer; John J Bottros; Jonah B Hulst; Vamsi K Kancherla; Mario Moric; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  [Acetabular reinforcement rings in revision total hip arthroplasty: midterm results in 298 cases].

Authors:  U J Schlegel; R G Bitsch; M Pritsch; P R Aldinger; H Mau; S J Breusch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage: medium follow-up results.

Authors:  J Lamo-Espinosa; J Duart Clemente; P Díaz-Rada; J Pons-Villanueva; J R Valentí-Nín
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2012-12-20

10.  Bone healing of severe acetabular defects after revision arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gösta Ullmark; Jens Sörensen; Olle Nilsson
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.