ArticleActa orthopaedica2009
Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Scaffolds for the repair of bone defects in clinical studies: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2018Pooled it
- Safety of a Porous Hydroxyapatite Bone Substitute in Orthopedics and Traumatology: A Multi-Centric Clinical Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
- Alternating Layers of Morselized Allograft and Injectable Ceramic Bone Graft Substitute in Acetabular Reconstruction: A Novel 'Sandwich' Technique.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Tricalcium Phosphate as a Bone Substitute to Treat Massive Acetabular Bone Defects in Hip Revision Surgery: A Systematic Review and Initial Clinical Experience with 11 Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Biphasic bone graft substitute in revision total hip arthroplasty with significant acetabular bone defects : a retrospective analysis.Bone & joint open · 2022Article
- An Observational Prospective Clinical Study for the Evaluation of a Collagen-Hydroxyapatite Composite Scaffold in Hip Revision Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty with Acetabular Bone Defects: Are Biological Grafts Really Better than Synthetic Bone Graft Substitutes?The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2022Article
- A Review and Description of Acetabular Impaction Bone Grafting: Updating the Traditional Technique.Hip & pelvis · 2021Review
- Minimum 10 years clinical and radiological outcomes of acetabular revisions of total hip arthroplasties with tricalcium phosphate/hydroxyapatite bone graft substitute.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- A review of biomimetic scaffolds for bone regeneration: Toward a cell-free strategy.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2021Review
- Synthetic Bone Grafting in Aseptic Loosening of Acetabular Cup: Good Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in Contained Bone Defects at Medium-Term Follow Up.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- A 3D-printed, personalized, biomechanics-specific beta-tricalcium phosphate bioceramic rod system: personalized treatment strategy for patients with femoral shaft non-union based on finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Calcium Phosphate Bone Graft Substitutes with High Mechanical Load Capacity and High Degree of Interconnecting Porosity.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Development and biological evaluation of fluorophosphonate-modified hydroxyapatite for orthopaedic applications.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2018Article
- Risk factors for failure of revision total hip arthroplasty using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Article
- The current state of scaffolds for musculoskeletal regenerative applications.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2015Review
- Impaction grafting of the acetabulum with ceramic bone graft substitute mixed with femoral head allograft: high survivorship in 43 patients with a median follow-up of 7 years: a follow-up report.Acta orthopaedica · 2013Article
- Impaction grafting of the acetabulum with ceramic bone graft substitute: high survivorship in 43 patients with a mean follow-up period of 4 years.Acta orthopaedica · 2013Article
- [Standardized reconstruction of acetabular bone defects using the cranial socket system].Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2010Article
- Bone substitutes: a review of their characteristics, clinical use, and perspectives for large bone defects management.Journal of tissue engineeringReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeOne of the greatest problems of revision hip arthroplasty is dealing with lost bone stock. Good results have been obtained with impaction grafting of allograft bone. However, there have been problems of infection, reproducibility, antigenicity, stability, availability of bone, and cost. Thus, alternatives to allograft have been sought. BoneSave is a biphasic porous ceramic specifically designed for use in impaction grafting. BoneSave is 80% tricalcium phosphate and 20% hydroxyapatite. Previous in vitro and in vivo studies have yielded good results using mixtures of allograft and BoneSave, when compared with allograft alone. This study is the first reported human clinical trial of BoneSave in impaction grafting.
methodsWe performed a single-institution, multi-surgeon, prospective cohort study. 43 consecutive patients underwent revision hip arthroplasty using BoneSave and allograft to restore missing bone in the acetabulum. 9 patients had cemented acetabular components implanted and 34 uncemented. 10 patients had cemented femoral components implanted and 1 had an uncemented femoral component. 32 patients did not have their femoral component revised.
resultsNo patients were lost to follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 24 (11-48) months, there were no re-revisions and there was no implant migration. 1 acetabular component had confluent lucent lines at the implant-graft interface. Complications were rare (1 fracture, 2 dislocations). Patient satisfaction with the procedure was high.
interpretationShort-term results indicate that impaction grafting of BoneSave and allograft is an effective method of dealing with loss of bone stock at revision hip surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.