ArticleDer Orthopade2010
[Mega cups and partial pelvic replacement].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Partial pelvic resection (internal hemipelvectomy) and endoprosthetic replacement in periacetabular tumors].Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2012Trial
- [50/m-Painful hip prosthesis : Preparation for the medical specialist examination: part 27].Der Orthopade · 2021Article
- [Treatment of acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using the Revisio-System].Der Orthopade · 2017Article
- Acetabular defect classification in times of 3D imaging and patient-specific treatment protocols.Der Orthopade · 2017Review
- [In Process Citation].Der Orthopade · 2016Article
- [Bone defect adjusted strategy in revision arthroplasty of the hip : Wich implant in wich situation? Innovations and approved methods].Der Orthopade · 2015Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extensive bone loss, as encountered in both revision arthroplasty of the hip and after resection of malignant tumors of the pelvis, is a major challenge for the surgeon as well as for the revision implant. The aims are, despite extensive acetabular defects, to achieve a primary and load-stable fixation of the revision prosthesis in the pelvic bone as well as restoring the physiological joint biomechanics. At present, a large number of different alloarthroplastic revision implants and complex techniques are available for reconstruction of acetabular deficiencies. According to D'Antonio's classification of acetabular defects, particularly high-grade defects with loss of the posterior column or a pelvic discontinuity require special attention regarding implant selection and surgical planning. The object of this paper is to highlight the most important tools and techniques of endoprosthetic reconstruction for grade III and IV defects (D'Antonio) of the acetabulum by means of a classification-oriented therapeutic concept and to discuss the pros and cons of the particular implant.
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.