ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2017
Acetabular revisions using porous tantalum components: A retrospective study with 5-10 years follow-up.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- RADIOGRAPHIC AND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION OF HIGH POROUS METAL OSSEOINTEGRATION IN ACETABULAR REVISIONS WITH PELVIC DISSOCIATION.Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2025Article
- Does Using Highly Porous Tantalum in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Reduce the Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
- Do Acetabular Buttress Augment Pose Risk to the Superior Gluteal Nerve? A Cadaveric Study.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the clinical and X-ray results of acetabular components and tantalum augments in prosthetic hip revisions.
methodsFifty-eight hip prostheses with primary failure of the acetabular component were reviewed with tantalum implants. The clinical records and X-rays of these cases were retrospectively reviewed. Bone defect evaluations were based on preoperative CT scans and classified according to Paprosky criteria of Radiolucent lines and periprosthetic gaps; implant mobilization and osteolysis were evaluated by X-ray. An
resultsThe mean follow-up was 87.6 ± 25.6 mo (range 3-120 mo). 25 cases (43.1%) were classified as minor defects, and 33 cases (56.9%) as major defects. The preoperative HHS rating improved significantly from a mean of 40.7 ± 6.1 (range: 29-53) before revision, to a mean of 85.8 ± 6.1 (range: 70-94) at the end of the follow-up (Student's
conclusionThe medium-term use of prosthetic tantalum components in prosthetic hip revisions is safe and effective in a wide variety of acetabular bone defects.
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.