Literature DB >> 1527120

The use of reinforcement rings to reconstruct deficient acetabula.

J Rosson1, J Schatzker.   

Abstract

We reviewed 64 patients in whom 66 acetabula had been reconstructed with either the Müller ring (46) or the Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage (20) at a mean follow-up of five years. Five hips had been revised a second time for loosening, all after a Müller ring had been used for a medial segmental defect (2), ungrafted cavitary defects (2) or after resorption of a block graft (1). The use of bone grafts with the implants reduced the incidence of failure from 13% to 6% and of circumferential radiolucent lines at the bone-implant interface from 39% to 2%. The Müller ring is indicated for acetabula with isolated peripheral segmental defects or cavitary defects confined to one or two sectors. The Burch-Schneider cage should be used for medial segmental defects, extensive cavitary defects and combined deficiencies. Defects should be reconstituted with bone graft rather than cement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1527120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  19 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

Review 2.  Systematic review on outcomes of acetabular revisions with highly-porous metals.

Authors:  Samik Banerjee; Kimona Issa; Bhaveen H Kapadia; Robert Pivec; Harpal S Khanuja; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  [Comparison of different cup revision systems].

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

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.  Outcome of cages in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alessandro Aprato; Matteo Olivero; Luigi Branca Vergano; Alessandro Massè
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2019-01-10

Review 6.  Clinical evaluation and surgical options in acetabular reconstruction: A literature review.

Authors:  Asim Qamar Ahmad; Ran Schwarzkopf
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-11-02

7.  Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty with a modular revision system and biological defect augmentation.

Authors:  Jan Schmolders; Max J Friedrich; Robert D Michel; Thomas M Randau; Matthias D Wimmer; Andreas C Strauss; Hendrik Kohlhof; Dieter C Wirtz; Sascha Gravius
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-10-04       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Total hip arthroplasty revision in elderly people with cement and Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage.

Authors:  L Gaiani; R Bertelli; Massimo Palmonari; G Vicenzi
Journal:  Chir Organi Mov       Date:  2009-04-29

9.  Acetabular revision with metal mesh, impaction bone grafting, and a cemented cup.

Authors:  Martín A Buttaro; Fernando Comba; Rodolfo Pusso; Francisco Piccaluga
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  [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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.