Literature DB >> 19748208

Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty acetabular cups to porous tantalum components: a 5-year follow-up study.

Mariano Fernández-Fairen1, Antonio Murcia, Agustin Blanco, Antonio Meroño, Antonio Murcia, Jorge Ballester.   

Abstract

We reviewed 263 consecutive patients with failed acetabular components after total hip arthroplasty that were revised using porous tantalum acetabular components and augments when necessary. The mean follow-up was 73.6 months (range, 60-84 months). The improvement of mean Harris hip score, Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index, and University of California Los Angeles activity scales were statistically significant (P < .001). Subjective assessments showed that 87.3% of patients reported "improvement" and 85.9% were "very or fairly pleased" with the results. At the most recent follow-up, all acetabular components were radiographically stable and none required rerevision for loosening. The acetabular revision was considered successful in 87% of cases. From this study, we conclude that the acetabular component used was reliable in creating a durable composite without failure for a minimum of 5 years. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19748208     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.07.027

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


  24 in total

1.  Uncemented Porous Tantalum Acetabular Components: Early Follow-Up and Failures in 599 Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties.

Authors:  William J Long; Nicolas O Noiseux; Tad M Mabry; Arlen D Hanssen; David G Lewallen
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2015

2.  CORR Insights(®): Custom Acetabular Cages Offer Stable Fixation and Improved Hip Scores for Revision THA With Severe Bone Defects.

Authors:  Thomas Jefferson Blumenfeld
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  [Treatment of acetabular defects with the trabecular metal revision system].

Authors:  G I Wassilew; V Janz; C Perka; M Müller
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  [Revision implants of the future: trends and new developments].

Authors:  S Winkler; F-X Köck; C Baier; H-R Springorum; A Beifuss; P Lechler; J Grifka; J Schaumburger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 5.  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 6.  Cementless acetabular revision: past, present, and future. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the acetabular side using cementless implants.

Authors:  Luis Pulido; Sridhar R Rachala; Miguel E Cabanela
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  CORR Insights®: Does the Risk of Rerevision Vary Between Porous Tantalum Cups and Other Cementless Designs After Revision Hip Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Johan Kärrholm
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Surgical technique: a cup-in-cup technique to restore offset in severe protrusio acetabular defects.

Authors:  Thomas J Blumenfeld; William L Bargar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Smoking may be a harbinger of early failure with ultraporous metal acetabular reconstruction.

Authors:  Adolph V Lombardi; Keith R Berend; Joanne B Adams; Ryan C Jefferson; Michael A Sneller
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Bone morphogenic protein-2 use in revision total hip arthroplasty with acetabular defects.

Authors:  Scott R Nodzo; Keely K Boyle; Sonja Pavlesen; Sridhar Rachala
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.