Literature DB >> 30218182

Acetabular reinforcement rings associated with allograft for severe acetabular defects.

Emmanuel Gibon1, Luc Kerboull1, Jean-Pierre Courpied1, Moussa Hamadouche2.   

Abstract

Acetabular revisions with severe bone defects can be challenging procedures. Several grading systems have been set into place to help the surgeon adequately gauge the degree of bone loss within the acetabulum. Internationally innovative research in orthopedics and bio-engineering has helped with progression of successful techniques and rings to re-establish the normal anatomy of the hip. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes of the different acetabular reinforcement rings in the setting of severe acetabular defects. A successive report of relevant data from the literature of multiple techniques will be provided. The procedures include the cup-cage, the Müller ring, the Ganz Ring, the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device (KARD), the graft augmentation prosthesis (GAP) ring, and the Burch-Schneider ring. The main focus of this overview is rings only; other devices such as trabecular augments, custom-made cages, or oblong cups are not discussed. Furthermore, a special emphasis on the surgical technique of the KARD is also given. Procedures using these rings are usually associated with bone grafts either bulk or morselized. When considering the available data on these various rings used for reconstruction of the severely damaged acetabulum, the cup-cage, the KARD, and the Burch-Schneider ring appear to be reliable options for more successful long-term outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Burch-Schneider ring; Cup-cage; GAP ring; Ganz ring; Kerboull acetabular reinforcement ring; Müller ring

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30218182     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4142-1

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


  76 in total

1.  Porous-coated cementless acetabular cups in revision surgery: a 6- to 11-year follow-up study.

Authors:  E Garcia-Cimbrelo
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Revision of the acetabular component without cement. A concise follow-up, at twenty to twenty-four years, of a previous report.

Authors:  Daniel K Park; Craig J Della Valle; Laura Quigley; Mario Moric; Aaron G Rosenberg; Jorge O Galante
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Salvaged failed roof rings and antiprotrusion cages: surgical options and implant survival.

Authors:  Suksan Tangsataporn; Mansour Abolghasemian; Paul R Kuzyk; David J Backstein; Oleg A Safir; Allan E Gross
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 2.135

4.  Results of cementless revision for failed cemented total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  C A Engh; A H Glassman; W L Griffin; J G Mayer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  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

6.  Segmental acetabular rim defects, bone loss, oversizing, and press fit cup in total hip arthroplasty evaluated with a probabilistic finite element analysis.

Authors:  Farid Amirouche; Giovanni F Solitro; Amit Walia; Mark Gonzalez; Aimee Bobko
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  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

8.  Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J A D'Antonio; W N Capello; L S Borden; W L Bargar; B F Bierbaum; W G Boettcher; M E Steinberg; S D Stulberg; J H Wedge
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Highly cross-linked polyethylene decreases the rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene at 13 years' follow-up.

Authors:  S A Hanna; L Somerville; R W McCalden; D D Naudie; S J MacDonald
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.082

10.  The Müller acetabular support ring. A preliminary review of indications and clinical results.

Authors:  P Haentjens; F Handelberg; P P Casteleyn; P Opdecam
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.075

View more
  4 in total

1.  Major acetabular defects: outcomes of first revision total hip arthroplasty using Kerboull cross-plate with allograft and cemented dual mobility cup at a maximum follow-up of fourteen years.

Authors:  Chahine Assi; Jad Mansour; Karl Boulos; Jacques Caton; Camille Samaha; Elie El-Kayyem; Kaissar Yammine
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 3.479

Review 2.  Diagnosis and management of implant debris-associated inflammation.

Authors:  Stuart B Goodman; Jiri Gallo; Emmanuel Gibon; Michiaki Takagi
Journal:  Expert Rev Med Devices       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 3.166

3.  Comparative Study with and without the Use of 3D Prototyping of an Unconventional Technique in the Surgical Planning of Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alonso Ranzzi; Rafael de Luca de Lucena; Carlos Roberto Schwartsmann; Carlos Roberto Galia; Marina Cornelli Girotto; Leandro de Freitas Spinelli
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2021-10-13

Review 4.  Pelvic discontinuity: a challenge to overcome.

Authors:  George C Babis; Vasileios S Nikolaou
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-06-28
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.