Literature DB >> 24178061

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

Samik Banerjee1, Kimona Issa, Bhaveen H Kapadia, Robert Pivec, Harpal S Khanuja, Michael A Mont.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature and report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of highly-porous acetabular cups in revision settings.
METHOD: A literature search of four electronic databases of EMBASE, CINAHL-plus, PubMed, and SCOPUS yielded 25 studies reporting the outcomes of 2,083 revision procedures with highly-porous acetabular components. There was lack of high quality evidence (level I and level II studies) and only two studies with level III evidence, while the remainder were all level IV studies. In addition, a majority of the studies had small sample sizes and had short to mid-term follow-up. The mean age of the patients was 65 years (range, 58-72 years) and the mean follow-up was 3.6 years (range, two to six years). Outcomes evaluated were aseptic survivorship, Harris hip scores, migration rates, incidence of peri-acetabular radiolucencies and radiographic restoration of the hip centre.
RESULTS: The mean aseptic survivorship was 97.2% (range, 80-100%). The Harris hip scores improved from a mean pre-operative score of 42 points, (range, 29-75 points), to a mean postoperative score of 79 points (range, 69-94 points). The mean incidence of cup migration and prevalence of peri-acetabular radiolucencies was 2.4% (range, 0-8.8%) and 4.6% (range, 0-19%), respectively, at final follow-up. The vertical hip centre-of-rotation was restored significantly from a mean of 39.2 mm (range, 27.6-50 mm) pre-operatively, to a mean of 24.1 mm (range, 7.4-47 mm), postoperatively.
CONCLUSION: The short-term clinical and radiographic results of highly-porous metals in revision hip arthroplasty are excellent with a low rate of loosening in the presence of both major and minor bone loss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24178061      PMCID: PMC3971260          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-2145-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  64 in total

1.  Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study.

Authors:  J T Dearborn; W H Harris
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Reconstruction of segmental defects during revision procedures of the acetabulum with the Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage.

Authors:  C Perka; R Ludwig
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Acetabular revision without cement.

Authors:  Tze-Pui Ng; Kwong-Yuen Chiu
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

Authors:  Karem Slim; Emile Nini; Damien Forestier; Fabrice Kwiatkowski; Yves Panis; Jacques Chipponi
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.872

5.  Cementless acetabular revision with the Harris-Galante porous prosthesis. Results after a minimum of ten years of follow-up.

Authors:  Brian R Hallstrom; Gregory J Golladay; David A Vittetoe; William H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  S A Lie; L I Havelin; O N Furnes; L B Engesaeter; S E Vollset
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-05

7.  Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  A L Whaley; D J Berry; W S Harmsen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study.

Authors:  J E Templeton; J J Callaghan; D D Goetz; P M Sullivan; R C Johnston
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Revision with cementless acetabular components: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of previous reports.

Authors:  Bryan N Trumm; John J Callaghan; Steve S Liu; Devon D Goetz; Richard C Johnston
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Identification and management of pelvic discontinuity.

Authors:  D J Berry
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  20 in total

1.  Closed suction drainage has no benefits in revision total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Simcha G Fichman; Tatu J Mäkinen; Benjamin Lozano; Wael A Rahman; Oleg Safir; Allan E Gross; David Backstein; Paul R T Kuzyk
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Acetabular Defect Reconstruction with Trabecular Metal Augments: Study with Minimum One-year Follow-up.

Authors:  Chirayu Dwivedi; Sandeep Gokhale; Hyun Gon Khim; Jeon Keon Oh; Won Yong Shon
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2017-09-06

Review 3.  Biological strategies for improved osseointegration and osteoinduction of porous metal orthopedic implants.

Authors:  Eric Alexander Lewallen; Scott M Riester; Carolina A Bonin; Hilal Maradit Kremers; Amel Dudakovic; Sanjeev Kakar; Robert C Cohen; Jennifer J Westendorf; David G Lewallen; Andre J van Wijnen
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part B Rev       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 6.389

4.  Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years.

Authors:  Michael R Whitehouse; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  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

6.  Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips.

Authors:  Xavier Flecher; Benjamin Appy; Sébastien Parratte; Matthieu Ollivier; Jean-Noel Argenson
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  Tantalum Versus Titanium Acetabular Cups in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Current Concept and a Review of the Current Literature.

Authors:  Rohit Rambani; Mayur Nayak; Miss Sheweidin Aziz; Krishan Almeida
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2022-05

Review 8.  Role of Hip Arthroscopy in the Treatment of Avascular Necrosis of the Hip: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Omid Shahpari; Javad Mortazavi; Mohammad H Ebrahimzadeh; Farshid Bagheri; Alireza Mousavian
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2022-06

9.  Management of periprosthetic acetabular fractures in elderly patients--a minimally invasive approach.

Authors:  Ralph Zettl; Daphne Eschbach; Steffen Ruchholtz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed for Coxarthrosis Preserves Long-Term Physical Function: A 40-Year Experience.

Authors:  Philip D Wilson; Leslee Wong; Yuo-Yu Lee; Stephen Lyman; Charles N Cornell
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2019-04-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.