Literature DB >> 32928018

Custom-made 3D-printed cup-cage implants for complex acetabular revisions: evaluation of pre-planned versus achieved positioning and 1-year migration data in 10 patients.

Vasileios Zampelis1, Gunnar Flivik1.   

Abstract

Background and purpose - The use of custom-made 3D-printed titanium implants for the reconstruction of large acetabular defects has been successively introduced in the last decade. In an observational cohort study we evaluated the agreement between preoperatively planned and actually achieved cup-cage position as well as 1-year follow-up migration of the cup-cage component.Patients and methods - 10 patients with Paprosky III defects underwent revision surgery using a custom-made 3D-printed cup-cage. The position of the implant on postoperative CT scan was compared with the preoperative plan and the postoperative CT scan was compared with the 1-year follow-up CT scan.Results - There was a median deviation in postoperative position versus planned in inclination of 3.6° (IQR 1.0-5.4), in anteversion of -2.8° (IQR -7.5 to 1.2), and in rotation of -1.2° (IQR -3.3 to 0.0). The median deviation in position of the center of rotation (COR) was -0.5 mm (IQR 2.9 to 0.7) in the anteroposterior (AP) plane, -0.6 mm (IQR -1.8 to -0.1) in the mediolateral (ML) plane, and 1.1 mm (IQR -1.6 to 2.8) in the superoinferior (SI) plane. The migration between postoperative and 1-year follow-up caused a mean change in inclination of 0.04° (IQR -0.06 to 0.09), in anteversion of -0.13° (IQR -0.23 to -0.06), and in rotation of 0.05° (IQR -0.46 to 1.4). The migration of COR was -0.08 mm (IQR -0.18 to -0.04) in the AP plane, 0.14 mm (IQR -0.08 to 0.22) in the ML plane, and 0.06 mm (IQR -0.02 to 0.35) in the SI plane. There was no re-revision.Interpretation - The early results show good agreement between planned and achieved cup-cage position and small measured migration values of the cup-cage component at the 1-year follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32928018      PMCID: PMC7919918          DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1819729

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop        ISSN: 1745-3674            Impact factor:   3.717


  32 in total

1.  Eight- to ten-year clinical and radiographic outcome of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component.

Authors:  George Macheras; Konstantinos Kateros; Athanassios Kostakos; Stefanos Koutsostathis; Dimitrios Danomaras; Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  The accuracy of positioning of a custom-made implant within a large acetabular defect at revision arthroplasty of the hip.

Authors:  M Baauw; G G van Hellemondt; M L van Hooff; M Spruit
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.082

Review 3.  Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management.

Authors:  Neil P Sheth; Charles L Nelson; Bryan D Springer; Thomas K Fehring; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 3.020

4.  A Custom-made Acetabular Implant for Paprosky Type 3 Defects.

Authors:  Marieke Baauw; Gijs Gerard van Hellemondt; Maarten Spruit
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 1.390

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.  Acetabular cup positioning in revision total hip arthroplasty with Paprosky type III acetabular defects: Martell radiographic analysis.

Authors:  Ho-Rim Choi; David Anderson; Scott Foster; Matthew Beal; Jo Ann Lee; Christopher Barr; Henrik Malchau; Joseph McCarthy; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  High rate of failure of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects.

Authors:  E H van Haaren; I C Heyligers; F G M Alexander; P I J M Wuisman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-03

8.  Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm followup.

Authors:  Daniel J Del Gaizo; Vamsi Kancherla; Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Quantitative Computerized Assessment of the Degree of Acetabular Bone Deficiency: Total radial Acetabular Bone Loss (TrABL).

Authors:  Frederik Gelaude; Tim Clijmans; Hendrik Delport
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2011-10-17

10.  Application of 3D-printed patient-specific skeletal implants augmented with autologous skeletal stem cells.

Authors:  Vitali Goriainov; Josephine K McEwan; Richard Oc Oreffo; Doug G Dunlop
Journal:  Regen Med       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 3.806

View more
  3 in total

1.  Use of Customized 3D-Printed Titanium Augment With Tantalum Trabecular Cup for Large Acetabular Bone Defects in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Midterm Follow-Up Study.

Authors:  Keyu Kong; Chen Zhao; Yongyun Chang; Hua Qiao; Yi Hu; Huiwu Li; Jingwei Zhang
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-06-01

2.  Good results at 2-year follow-up of a custom-made triflange acetabular component for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity: a prospective case series of 50 hips.

Authors:  Marieke Scharff-Baauw; Miranda L Van Hooff; Gijs G Van Hellemondt; Paul C Jutte; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Maarten Spruit
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 3.717

Review 3.  Clinical and radiological outcomes in three-dimensional printing assisted revision total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rui Zhang; Jiajun Lin; Fenyong Chen; Wenge Liu; Min Chen
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-08-13       Impact factor: 2.359

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.