ArticleInternational orthopaedics2018
Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Porous cementless cups combined with trabecular metal augments in revision hip arthroplasty: mid-term outcomes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Trabecular Titanium Acetabular Shell with Burch-Schneider Cages in Revision Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
- Long-term functional results of revision hip replacement using Burch-Schneider cages.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2022Review
- Primary Stability in Hip Revision Arthroplasty: Comparison of the Stability of Cementless Fixed Augments on a Modular Acetabular Cage System with and without Cranial Straps.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Custom-made 3D-printed cup-cage implants for complex acetabular revisions: evaluation of pre-planned versus achieved positioning and 1-year migration data in 10 patients.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Observational
- Highly porous titanium cup in cementless total hip arthroplasty: registry results at eight years.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- A single centre study of 41 cases on the use of porous tantalum metal implants in acetabular revision surgery.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Article
- Acetabular reinforcement rings associated with allograft for severe acetabular defects.International orthopaedics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcetabular revision surgery poses a challenge due to the increased frequency of severe defects and poor quality of the remaining bone. We compare the clinical and radiological outcomes, complications, and survival of two systems commonly used in complex acetabular revisions (AAOS types II, III, and IV): trabecular metal system (TM) and Burch-Schneider antiprotrusion cages (BS).
methodsEighty-four patients underwent acetabular revision surgery with TM or BS in our centre between 2008 and 2014. Comparison was made of demographic and clinical characteristics, satisfaction, radiographic parameters, complications, and survival of the implants. A BS was implanted in 30.9% of the patients, while 69.1% received a TM implant. The mean follow-up was 4.77 years.
resultsThe BS group required a significantly greater number of constrained implants (p = 0.001) and more walking aids (p = 0.04). The mean satisfaction (p = 0.02) and HHS scores at the end of the follow-up were higher in the TM group (p = 0.003). No differences were observed in the incidence of complications, though the only two cases of implant rupture corresponded to the BS group. The overall survival rate was 88.1% after 7.5 years.
conclusionTM implants afforded better clinical outcomes and greater patient satisfaction than antiprotrusion cages in the treatment of severe acetabular 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.