ArticleActa orthopaedica2017
Excellent long-term results of the Müller acetabular reinforcement ring in primary cup revision.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mid- to long-term outcomes and survival of total hip arthroplasty using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement plate: an analysis of associated factors.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Acetabular Reconstruction Rings in Complex Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Challenging Implantation of Hip Prosthesis in a 32-year-old Patient with Kniest Syndrome.Journal of orthopaedic case reportsArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - The original Müller acetabular reinforcement ring (ARR) was developed to be used for acetabular revisions with small cavitary and/or segmental defects or poor acetabular bone quality. Long-term data for this device are scarce. We therefore investigated long-term survival and radiographic outcome for revision total hip arthroplasty using the ARR. Patients and methods - Between October 1984 and December 2005, 259 primary acetabular revisions using an ARR were performed in 245 patients (259 hips). The mean follow-up time was 10 (0-27) years; 8 hips were lost to follow-up. The cumulative incidence for revision was calculated using a competing risk model. Radiographic assessment was performed for 90 hips with minimum 10 years' follow-up. It included evaluation of osteolysis, migration and loosening. Results - 16 ARRs were re-revised: 8 for aseptic loosening, 6 for infection, 1 for suspected infection, and 1 due to malpositioning of the cup. The cumulative re-revision rate for aseptic loosening of the ARR at 20 years was 3.7% (95% CI 1.7-6.8%). Assuming all patients lost to follow-up were revised for aseptic loosening, the re-revision rate at 20 years was 6.9% (95% CI 4.1-11%). The overall re-revision rate of the ARR for any reason at 20 years was 7.0% (95% CI 4.1-11%). 21 (23%) of the 90 radiographically examined ARR had radiographic changes: 12 showed isolated signs of osteolysis but were not loose; 9 were determined loose on follow-up, of which 5 were revised. Interpretation - Our data suggest that the long-term survival and radiographic results of the ARR in primary acetabular revision are excellent.
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.