Literature DB >> 19789935

Outcomes of isolated acetabular revision.

Bryan M Lawless1, William L Healy, Sanjeev Sharma, Richard Iorio.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Isolated acetabular revision can be associated with variable patient outcomes; there is a risk of hip instability. We evaluated 42 isolated acetabular revision operations and investigated the impact of patient age, diagnosis, bone stock, bone loss, bone augmentation, and obesity on pain and the Harris hip score. Preoperative radiographs were graded according to Paprosky et al. Postoperative radiographs were graded according to Moore et al. and for implant position, prosthetic fixation, and osteolysis. Complications, patient outcome, reoperations, and acetabular rerevisions were recorded. All patients had complete clinical and radiographic followup with a minimum followup of 2 years (mean, 6.4 years; range, 2-13 years). The mean pain score and the mean Harris hip score improved postoperatively. There was one infection 6 months after operation. There were no dislocations. There were three acetabular rerevisions (7%) for aseptic loosening. Patient age, preoperative diagnosis, bone loss, and pelvic bone augmentation had no influence on pain or Harris hip scores. Before operation, obese patients tended to have less pain than nonobese patients but at followup obese patients had less improvement in pain scores than nonobese patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19789935      PMCID: PMC2806977          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1104-3

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


  14 in total

1.  The influence of obesity on perioperative morbidity and mortality in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  C Perka; K Labs; M Muschik; F Buttgereit
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Relationship between body mass index and activity in hip or knee arthroplasty patients.

Authors:  C D McClung; C A Zahiri; J K Higa; H C Amstutz; T P Schmalzried
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  Porous-ingrowth revision acetabular implants secured with peripheral screws. A minimum twelve-year follow-up.

Authors:  Steven H Weeden; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Kevin J Bozic; Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Kevin Ong; Thomas P Vail; Daniel J Berry
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Clinical impact of obesity on stability following revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Youjeong Kim; Saam Morshed; Tim Joseph; Kevin Bozic; Michael D Ries
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation.

Authors:  W G Paprosky; P G Perona; J M Lawrence
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Aileen M Davis; Zoe Agnidis; Elizabeth Badley; Alex Kiss; James P Waddell; Allan E Gross
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery.

Authors:  Charles Gozzard; Ashley Blom; A Taylor; Evert Smith; Ian Learmonth
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  The coexistence and characteristics of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis.

Authors:  J H Healey; V J Vigorita; J M Lane
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  6 in total

1.  Modular sleeves with ceramic heads in isolated acetabular cup revision in younger patients-laboratory and experimental analysis of suitability and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Peter Helwig; Lukas Konstantinidis; Anja Hirschmüller; Anke Bernstein; Oliver Hauschild; Norbert P Südkamp; Björn G Ochs
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  A dual-mobility cup reduces risk of dislocation in isolated acetabular revisions.

Authors:  Roberto Civinini; Christian Carulli; Fabrizio Matassi; Lorenzo Nistri; Massimo Innocenti
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Complications Are Not Increased With Acetabular Revision of Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Colin T Penrose; Thorsten M Seyler; Samuel S Wellman; Michael P Bolognesi; Paul F Lachiewicz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Alumina heads minimize wear and femoral osteolysis progression after isolated simple acetabular revision.

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Nicolas Dupuy; Olivier Pidet; Yashuhiro Homma; Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  The Survival of Well-Fixed Cementless Femoral Component After Isolated Acetabular Component Revision.

Authors:  Mehmet Ekinci; Yucel Bilgin; Yasin Sayar; Omer Naci Ergin; Ahmet Salduz; Turgut Akgul; Irfan Ozturk
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-05-30       Impact factor: 1.251

6.  Clinical and radiological results over the medium term of isolated acetabular revision.

Authors:  Nicola Piolanti; Lorenzo Andreani; Paolo Domenico Parchi; Enrico Bonicoli; Francesco Niccolai; Michele Lisanti
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-12-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.