ArticleDer Orthopade2017
[Treatment of acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using the Revisio-System].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2017. 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.
- Custom-Made Monoflange Acetabular Component for Revision Hip Arthroplasty in Paprosky Type IIIA Defect: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Bio-Activated PEEK: Promising Platforms for Improving Osteogenesis through Modulating Macrophage Polarization.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Custom Made Monoflange Acetabular Components for the Treatment of Paprosky Type III Defects.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Acetabular defect classification and management : Revision arthroplasty of the acetabular cup based on 3-point fixation.Der Orthopade · 2020Article
- Management of pelvic discontinuity in revision arthroplasty : Cementless acetabular cup with iliac stem and cranial strap.Der Orthopade · 2019Article
- [The minimally invasive AMIS technique for total hip replacement : Video article].Der Orthopade · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany different systems for the management of primary and secondary acetabular defects are available, each with its inherent advantages and disadvantages. The Revisio-System is a press-fit oval mono-block implant that makes a defect-oriented reconstruction and restoration of the center of rotation possible. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this study, we retrospectively reviewed the outcome of 92 consecutive patients treated with this oval press-fit cup due to periacetabular bone loss. The average follow-up was 58.2 months. Defects were classified according to D'Antonio. There were 39 type II, 38 Type III, and 15 type IV defects. After an average of 4.9 years, the implant survival rate was 94.6% with cup revision as the end point and 89.1% with revision for any reason as the end point. The Harris Hip Score increased from 41.1 preoperatively to 62.3 postoperatively. The mean level of pain measured with the Visual Analogue Scale (VSA) was reduced from 6.9 preoperatively to 3.8 postoperatively.
resultsThe Revisio-System represents a promising toolbox for defect-orientated reconstruction of acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Our results demonstrate that the implantation of the Revisio-System can result in a good mid-term clinical outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28012061What 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.