Literature DB >> 16841418

Restoration of acetabular bone loss 2005.

Allan E Gross1.   

Abstract

The surgical strategy for revision of the acetabular component is determined by available host bone stock. Contained (cavitary) bone loss is the most common pattern of bone loss and can be addressed by morsellized bone graft. If contact can be made with at least 50% host bone, conventional uncemented cups can be used. If, however, contact with 50% host bone cannot be achieved, a protective cage and a cemented cup is an acceptable option but with a significant complication rate. The use of trabecular metal, which provides a more favorable environment for bone graft remodeling and host bone ingrowth, has allowed us to address larger contained defects without resorting to a cage. For massive contained defects, a combination of a trabecular metal cup protected by a cage has been used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16841418     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.11.006

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


  9 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.  Trabecular Metal cups for acetabular defects with 50% or less host bone contact.

Authors:  Dror Lakstein; David Backstein; Oleg Safir; Yona Kosashvili; Allan E Gross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Surface replacement of the hip can result in decreased acetabular bone stock.

Authors:  Michael Tanzer; Dylan Tanzer; Karen Smith
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Method of fixation does not influence the overall risk of rerevision in first-time cup revisions.

Authors:  Maziar Mohaddes; Göran Garellick; Johan Kärrholm
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Does hip resurfacing require larger acetabular cups than conventional THA?

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Michael S H Kain; Otmar Hersche; Urs Munzinger; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The use of customized cages in revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects.

Authors:  Yuanqing Mao; Chen Xu; Jiawei Xu; Huiwu Li; Fengxiang Liu; Degang Yu; Zhenan Zhu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Acetabular reconstruction with a reinforcement device and bone grafting in revision arthroplasty-a mean five years of follow-up.

Authors:  Ancuța Zazgyva; Sándor-György Zuh; Ciprian Oliviu Roman; István Gergely; Tudor Sorin Pop
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-11-07       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Preliminary biomechanical study of different acetabular reinforcement devices for acetabular reconstruction.

Authors:  Ching-Lung Tai; Po-Yi Lee; Pang-Hsing Hsieh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Acetabular Reconstruction in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Won Yong Shon; Siva Swaminathan Santhanam; Jung Woo Choi
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2016-03-31
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.