ArticleBone & joint research2018
Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone Morphogenetic Proteins-2-Augmented Acetabular Bone Stock Restoration During Two-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Biomechanical Stability of Two Fix-and-Replace Techniques in an Acetabular Fracture Model with Pelvic Discontinuity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of bispherical augments in acetabular defect reconstruction and comparative study of different fixation methods.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Acetabular Home Run Screw Guidance for Transiliac Fixation in Cup Revision Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- What Are the Functional, Radiographic, and Survivorship Outcomes of a Modified Cup-cage Technique for Pelvic Discontinuity?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024Article
- Standardized 3D-printed trabecular titanium augment and cup for acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Treatment of Acetabular Bone Defect in Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using 3D Printed Tantalum Acetabular Augment.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Acetabular Wall Weakening in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Pilot Study.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2023Article
- Extended Ischiopubic Fixation Using Porous Metal Augments in Cementless Acetabular Reconstruction during Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Porous tantalum shell and augment for acetabular defect reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Biomechanical effect of metal augment and bone graft on cup stability for acetabular reconstruction of total hip arthroplasty in hip dysplasia: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Modular revision strategy with bispherical augments in severe acetabular deficiency reconstruction.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- 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
- Changes in bone density, intraosseous pressure of distal femoral articular cartilage and subchondral bone after proximal femoral medullary cavity cement filling in rabbits.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
- Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants.Bone & joint research · 2021Article
- Revision of a Fractured Titanium Modular Revision Hip Stem Without Removal of the Well-Fixed Part of the Stem: A New Approach Using a Cemented Tube.Arthroplasty today · 2020Article
- Comparison of the Primary Stability of Porous Tantalum and Titanium Acetabular Revision Constructs.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Comparison of Different Locking Mechanisms in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Relative Motion between Cup and Inlay.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Titanium Acetabular Component Deformation under Cyclic Loading.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- The augment-and-modular-cage revision system for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects-two-year clinical and radiographic results.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined.
methodsA total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN).
resultsScrew fixation alone resulted in up to three times more movement (p = 0.006), especially when load was increased to 100% (p < 0.001), than with the other two fixation methods (C and SC). No significant difference was noted when a screw was added to the cement fixation. Increased load resulted in increased relative movement between the interfaces in all fixation methods (p < 0.001).
conclusionCement fixation between a porous titanium acetabular component and augment is associated with less relative movement than screw fixation alone for all implant interfaces, particularly with increasing loads. Adding a screw to the cement fixation did not offer any significant advantage. These results also show that the stability of the tested acetabular component/augment interface affects the stability of the construct that is affixed to the bone.
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.