ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2019
A single centre study of 41 cases on the use of porous tantalum metal implants in acetabular revision surgery.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic conditions: a systematic review on current outcomes.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2022Pooled it
- Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cups in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Has Been the Experience So Far?-A Systematic Literature Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- 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
- Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of tantalum components in the management of acetabular reconstruction following periacetabular oncologic resection in primary malignancies.European journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Minimum 10 years clinical and radiological outcomes of acetabular revisions of total hip arthroplasties with tricalcium phosphate/hydroxyapatite bone graft substitute.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
- Acetabular "up-and-in" defect treated with in-situ femoral head autograft technique during total hip arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims at investigating cup survival of porous tantalum revision cups and identifies risk factors for failure.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 41 patients treated between 2010 and 2012. Main indications were aseptic loosening in 83% and two-stage exchange after periprosthetic joint infection in 17% of cases. Mean follow-up period was 72 months. Femoral megaprostheses were used in 13% of cases. Most defects were classified as Paprosky 3b (29%). Function was assessed using the Harris Hip score.
resultsAseptic cup survivorship was 80% at 104 months (95% Confidence Interval 67.4-92.4). Overall implant survival was 73%. Major bone loss defects (Paprosky types 2c to 3b) were associated with a significantly higher rate of failure than minor defects (P = 0.002). There were eight cases of aseptic loosening (19.5%) and two of infection (4.9%). Previous surgeries, indication for acetabular revision, patient-related risk factors and use of megaprostheses did not significantly influence implant survival. The Harris Hip Score improved from a median of 40 (Interquartile range 31-45) to 82 (interquartile range 65-88) postoperative (P < 0.0001).
conclusionsIn summary, the use of porous tantalum metal implants in acetabular revision surgery achieves good to excellent short- term and mid-term functional results and an acceptable complication rate relative to the extent of defect and previous surgery. However, one should be aware of potential limitations of the implants in addressing large defects and discontinuity.
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.