Literature DB >> 26842414

Role of Cages in Revision Arthroplasty of the Acetabulum.

Tatu J Mäkinen1, Paul Kuzyk2, Oleg A Safir3, David Backstein4, Allan E Gross5.   

Abstract

➤ The outcome of acetabular revision is heavily influenced by the degree of associated bone loss.➤ Uncemented hemispherical acetabular components can be used in the majority of acetabular revisions, although occasionally the degree of bone loss precludes the stability of the hemispherical component at the correct anatomic level or there is minimal bleeding host bone left for biologic fixation.➤ Massive acetabular bone loss resulting in the need for bone grafts or highly porous augments involving more than half of the acetabulum is one of the main indications for the use of cages.➤ The cup-cage reconstruction is based on bone-grafting the deficient acetabulum and securing a hemispherical, highly porous metal component with multiple screws to bridge the discontinuity and off-loading the hemispherical component with a titanium cage spanning from ischium to ilium.➤ In addition to managing pelvic discontinuities, the cup-cage construct can also be used in hips without discontinuity as the hemispherical, highly porous metal component is used to restore bone stock.➤ In situations in which there is not enough bleeding host bone to secure a hemispherical component, a highly porous metal augment can be used to address the osseous deficiency. The augment is also protected with a cage to assist bone ingrowth.
Copyright © 2016 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26842414     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.O.00143

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  7 in total

1.  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 2.  [Periprosthetic acetabular fractures in geriatric patients].

Authors:  S C Herath; M F R Rollmann; T Histing; J H Holstein; T Pohlemann
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Impingement of the Sciatic Nerve due to a Protruding Acetabular Cage Rim.

Authors:  Benjamin Karel Devlieger; Philipp Drees; Stefan Mattyasovszky; Cilem Özalp; Pol Maria Rommens
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-10-01

4.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study.

Authors:  Irene Isabel López-Torres; Pablo Sanz-Ruíz; Coral Sánchez-Pérez; Ricardo Andrade-Albarracín; Javier Vaquero
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Radiographic evaluation of 19 patients with Paprosky 3A and 3B submitted to acetabular review with trabecular metal wedge.

Authors:  Carlos Eduardo Benvindo Rosal da Fonseca Neto; Marcos Murilo Santana Lima; Bruno Tavares Rabello; Leonardo da Silva Sena; Luiz Carlos Zacaron Júnior; Maurício Tarrago Viana
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2017-12-06

6.  Recovery of the Hip Rotation Center with Tantalum in Revision Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Antônio Augusto Guimarães Barros; Victor Atsushi Kasuya Barbosa; Lincoln Paiva Costa; Euler de Carvalho Guedes; Carlos César Vassalo
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2019-08-20

Review 7.  The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium.

Authors:  Peter K Sculco; Timothy Wright; Michael-Alexander Malahias; Alexander Gu; Mathias Bostrom; Fares Haddad; Seth Jerabek; Michael Bolognesi; Thomas Fehring; Alejandro Gonzalez DellaValle; William Jiranek; William Walter; Wayne Paprosky; Donald Garbuz; Thomas Sculco
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2021-09-28
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.