ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2015
THA revisions using impaction allografting with mesh is durable for medial but not lateral acetabular defects.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Graft Incorporation and Cup Migration in Acetabular Impaction Bone Grafting for Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1093 Hips.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Total Hip Arthroplasty in a Case of Neglected Central Hip Dislocation with Isolated Quadrilateral Plate Fracture: A Case Report with Review of Literature.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Use of morselized bone allograft in revision hip arthroplasty for massive acetabular defect: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Medial wall reconstruction using metal disc augments in revision total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Is Cemented Dual-Mobility Cup a Reliable Option in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- An Observational Prospective Clinical Study for the Evaluation of a Collagen-Hydroxyapatite Composite Scaffold in Hip Revision Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Extended Ischiopubic Fixation Using Porous Metal Augments in Cementless Acetabular Reconstruction during Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Impaction Bone Grafting Combined with Titanium Mesh for Acetabular Bone Defects Reconstruction in Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision: A Retrospective and Mini-Review Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Long-term results of combined porous tantalum augments and titanium-coated cups for Paprosky type III bone defects in acetabular revision.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Bone impaction grafting with trabecular metal augments in large defects in young patients: unravelling a new perspective in surgical technique.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- [Short- and mid-term effectiveness of impaction bone allograft with acetabular components in treatment of severe acetabular defects].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2020Article
- Post-operative hip centre restoration and migration after impaction bone grafting in revision and complex primary hip arthroplasty.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2019Article
- Acetabular revision in total hip arthroplasty with tantalum augmentation and lyophilized bovine xenograft.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost acetabular revisions are managed with cementless hemispherical or elliptical metal implants relying on bone ingrowth. Nonetheless, loss of acetabular bone stock and inability to achieve secure component fixation represent challenges in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Impaction bone grafting (IBG) using allograft represents one option for treatment of this problem. However, cup migration and bone graft resorption are limitations when IBG is used for large segmental defects, and the precise role of IBG as well as the use of mesh (and the kinds of defects for which mesh does not work well) in this setting remains unknown. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore evaluated patients undergoing acetabular revision surgery using IBG and a cemented cup in large bone defects to determine (1) the frequency with which the hip center could be restored in hips with Paprosky 3A and 3B defects and in hips with or without the use of metallic mesh during surgery; (2) survivorship of IBG acetabular-revision reconstructions in patients with severe Paprosky 3A and 3B defects; and (3) risk factors for failure of the reconstruction, including the use of mesh and defect severity (3A versus 3B).
methodsBetween 1997 and 2009, we performed 226 acetabular revisions using IBG. During that time, indications for using IBG in this setting included Paprosky 3A and 3B defects without pelvic discontinuity. Of these, 204 (90.2%) were available for followup at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 10 years; range, 5-17 years). There were 100 hips with an intraoperative bone defect of Paprosky 3A and 104 with a 3B. Medial or rim acetabular uncontained defects were treated with medial and/or lateral metallic mesh in 142 hips. We determined the postoperative radiological cup position and acetabular reconstruction of the hip center according to Ranawat in both groups. We assessed the appearance of cup loosening and the possible risk factors with regression analysis.
resultsMean postoperative acetabular abduction angle and vertical, horizontal, and hip rotation center distances improved (p < 0.001 in all parameters). Nine hips showed radiological loosening in the group with bone defect 3A and 16 in Group 3B. The survival rate for loosening at 15 years was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71%-95%) for Group 3A and 73% (95% CI, 60%-84%) for Group 3B (p = 0.04). The survivorship for loosening when using mesh or not at 15 years was: no mesh 89% (95% CI, 74%-99%), medial mesh 85% (95% CI, 72%-97%), lateral mesh 80% (95% CI, 67%-91%), and medial and lateral meshes 54% (95% CI, 31%-76%) (p = 0.008). After controlling the most relevant confounding variables we found that the most important factor associated with loosening was lateral mesh use (p = 0.008; hazard ratio, 2.942; 95% CI, 1.328-6.516).
conclusionsIBG provides an improvement in reconstruction of the hip rotation center in acetabular revision surgery. Although results are good for contained or medial large defects, hips with a rim or lateral segmental defect may need other options for reconstruction of these challenging surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
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.