Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28083683›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2017

[Partial exchange in total hip arthroplasty : What can we combine?]

P Weber, A Steinbrück, A C Paulus, M Woiczinski, F Schmidutz, A Fottner, V Jansson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

P WeberKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Physikalische Medizin und Rehabilitation, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland. Patrick.Weber@med.uni-muenchen.de.
A SteinbrückKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Physikalische Medizin und Rehabilitation, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
A C PaulusKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Physikalische Medizin und Rehabilitation, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
M WoiczinskiKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Physikalische Medizin und Rehabilitation, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
F SchmidutzKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Physikalische Medizin und Rehabilitation, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
A FottnerKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Physikalische Medizin und Rehabilitation, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
V JanssonKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Physikalische Medizin und Rehabilitation, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn case of hip revision arthroplasty, one component (cup/stem) is often well fixed and does not need to be exchanged. The newly implanted component needs to be compatible with the well-fixed implant. The combination of implants from different companies leads to "mix and match" or even mismatch between the implants. OBJECTIVES AND

methodsThe objective of this work was to describe possible combinations including their specifications that need to be considered in partial exchange of hip prostheses. For this purpose the literature, surgical techniques of companies and judgements concerning this topic were analysed and our own results and experiences were included. RESULTS AND

conclusionsPartial revision arthroplasty can be challenging and needs to be planned in detail. In case of isolated cup or inlay revision with exchange of a modular head the cone of the stem needs to be identified. A ceramic head may be used in revision with a titanium sleeve even from a different company as long as they are compatible. Patients however need to give their informed consent for this mix and match procedure. This procedure is done frequently and good study results support this, however from a juristic point of view a definite recommendation cannot be given. If the inlay of a cup is replaced, the original inlay should be used. If this is not available anymore, it can be manufactured as a special product in many cases. If this is also not possible, an inlay can also be cemented into a well-fixed cup. Biomechanical and clinical studies support this off-label technique. In case of an isolated exchange of the stem with a ceramic inlay that is retained in a well-fixed cup, the revision stem and ceramic head need to be from the same company as the cup. In case of ceramic fracture, a ceramic head with a titanium sleeve should be combined with a PE or ceramic inlay, a metal head or inlay should never be used.

Indexed as

Hip ProsthesisAcetabuloplastyAcetabulumArthroplasty, Replacement, HipCombined Modality TherapyEvidence-Based MedicineHumansOsteoarthritis, HipOsteotomyPlastic Surgery ProceduresProsthesis DesignReoperationTreatment OutcomeCementation of an inlayCeramic fractureCone adapterHip replacement arthroplastyMix and MatchSurgical revision

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.