Literature DB >> 15057085

Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision.

Daniel J Berry1.   

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to explore the results of antiprotrusio cages and present indications for these devices. The role of antiprotrusio cages has had several reassessments in North America during the past decade. Currently, the primary indication for antiprotrusio cages are: (1) circumstances in which a stable, uncemented hemispheric acetabular component cannot be gained; and (2) circumstances in which there is so little remaining host bone that biologic fixation of a porous implant is very unlikely. Antiprotrusio cages have been reported to have a mechanical failure rate between 0% and 15% at midterm followup but most series do not report selective results of using cages only for the most severe bone defects. Key technical points when using antiprotrusio cages include: (1) wide exposure of the acetabular bone while protecting surrounding neurovascular structures; (2) positioning the antiprotrusio cage so as to span from host bone to host bone, thereby bridging acetabular defects; (3) appropriate bone grafting of acetabular bone deficiencies; and (4) secure fixation of the cage with good dome and posterior column support.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15057085     DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200403000-00015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  20 in total

1.  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

2.  The augment-and-modular-cage revision system for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects-two-year clinical and radiographic results.

Authors:  Philip P Roessler; Max Jaenisch; Manuel Kuhlmann; Miriam Wacker; P Johannes Wagenhäuser; Sascha Gravius; Dieter C Wirtz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.075

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

Review 4.  [Comparison of different cup revision systems].

Authors:  K Trieb
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Late fracture of a Burch-Schneider acetabular cage: rare occurrence following polyethylene cup wear.

Authors:  Dario Regis; Andrea Sandri; Alessandra Rizzo; Pietro Bartolozzi
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2009-03-26

6.  [Treatment of acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using the Revisio-System].

Authors:  M Hoberg; B M Holzapfel; A F Steinert; F Kratzer; M Walcher; M Rudert
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  [Standardized reconstruction of acetabular bone defects using the cranial socket system].

Authors:  Maximilian Rudert; Boris Michael Holzapfel; Florian Kratzer; Reiner Gradinger
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.154

8.  Management of severe periacetabular bone loss combined with pelvic discontinuity in revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Max J Friedrich; Jan Schmolders; Robert D Michel; Thomas M Randau; Matthias D Wimmer; Hendrik Kohlhof; Dieter C Wirtz; Sascha Gravius
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Is an Acetabular Cage and Cement Fixation Sufficiently Durable for the Treatment of Destructive Acetabular Metastases?

Authors:  Philip Rowell; Martin Lowe; Scott Sommerville; Ian Dickinson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.