Literature DB >> 30714995

Outcome of cages in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum: a systematic review.

Alessandro Aprato1, Matteo Olivero, Luigi Branca Vergano, Alessandro Massè.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: To investigate the clinical, radiological and functional outcomes of acetabular revisions with acetabular reinforcement rings and cages.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature study of international databases was performed. Inclusion criteria were cementless revisions, use of reinforcement rings, radiological and clinical follow-up, availability of full text in English, publication between January 1990 and July 2018. In a second further analysis, we selected only studies describing patients with more severe acetabular defects (AAOS 3, AAOS 4, Paprosky III). Data extracted included mean follow-up period, radiographic follow-up, functional scores, implant failures and survival rate.
RESULTS: We included in our review 1327 acetabular revisions described in 28 articles. The most commonly used reinforcement rings were Burch-Schneider ring, the Muller ring and the Ganz ring. Mean follow-up for all patients together was 8.8 years. Clinical or radiological signs of loosening were reported in 191 patients, 83 patients needed further acetabular revision for aseptic loosening and 41 patients received additional surgeries for septic loosening. The mean value of the Harris Hip Score reported at the last follow-up was 76.3. Nineteen articles fulfilled the criteria for further analysis about high-grade acetabular bone defects. We analyzed 649 revisions with mean follow-up period of 8.2 years. Clinical or radiological loosening was reported in 90 patients, additional acetabular revision was performed in 39 patients and 25 patients needed further surgeries for deep infection.
CONCLUSION: Acetabular revisions with cages are characterized by good survival rates and functional scores with a mean follow-up period of 8 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30714995      PMCID: PMC6503392          DOI: 10.23750/abm.v90i1-S.8081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Biomed        ISSN: 0392-4203


  35 in total

1.  Acetabular revision with impacted grafting and a reinforcement ring: 42 patients followed for a mean of 10 years.

Authors:  M van der Linde; A Tonino
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2001-06

2.  Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2-17 years.

Authors:  Ulf J Schlegel; Rudi G Bitsch; Maria Pritsch; Martin Clauss; Hans Mau; Steffen J Breusch
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.717

3.  Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Kevin Ong; Edmund Lau; Fionna Mowat; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up.

Authors:  D Garbuz; E Morsi; A E Gross
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Acetabular revision. The role of rings and cages.

Authors:  J Schatzker; M K Wong
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Reconstruction of failed acetabular component in the presence of severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review.

Authors:  A Volpin; S Konan; C Biz; R J Tansey; F S Haddad
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2018-04-13

7.  Acetabular reconstruction using morcellised bone with ring support--medium-term results at three to nine years.

Authors:  Kamalakannan Murali Krishnan; Lee Longstaff; Paul Partington
Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 0.500

Review 8.  Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review.

Authors:  Nicholas A Beckmann; Stefan Weiss; Matthias C M Klotz; Matthias Gondan; Sebastian Jaeger; Rudi G Bitsch
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-05-27       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Acetabular bone reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a comparison of freeze-dried, irradiated and chemically-treated allograft vitalised with autologous marrow versus frozen non-irradiated allograft.

Authors:  B G Ochs; U Schmid; J Rieth; A Ateschrang; K Weise; U Ochs
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-09

10.  Are porous tantalum cups superior to conventional reinforcement rings?

Authors:  Anders Brüggemann; Erik Fredlund; Hans Mallmin; Nils P Hailer
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  [Pitfalls in revision hip arthroplasty].

Authors:  Carsten Perka; Rudolf Ascherl
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-07-16

2.  Trabecular titanium cups in acetabular revision arthroplasty: analysis of 10-year survivorship, restoration of center of rotation and osteointegration.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi Lepri; Matteo Innocenti; Alberto Galeotti; Christian Carulli; Marco Villano; Roberto Civinini
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 2.928

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.  Decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions.

Authors:  Alessandro Aprato; Matteo Olivero; Paolo Di Benedetto; Alessandro Massè
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2020-12-30

5.  The use of a non-biological, bridging, antiprotrusio cage in complex revision hip arthroplasty and periacetabular reconstructive oncologic surgery. Is still today a valid option?: A mid/long-term survival and complications' analysis.

Authors:  Matteo Innocenti; Francesco Muratori; Giacomo Mazzei; Davide Guido; Filippo Frenos; Ersilia Lucenteforte; Rodolfo Capanna; Domenico Andrea Campanacci
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 3.067

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.