ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2019
Post-operative hip centre restoration and migration after impaction bone grafting in revision and complex primary hip arthroplasty.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impaction Bone Grafting with Low Dose Irradiated Freeze-Dried Allograft Bone for Acetabular Reconstruction.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Mid-term results in revision hip arthroplasty with impaction bone grafted cup reconstruction for acetabular defects.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
objectivesAlthough impaction grafting proved efficacy in the reconstruction of acetabular defects in primary and revision hip arthroplasty, its role in large segmental defects is still debatable. Our objective is to determine hip centre restoration and last follow-up migration after acetabular reconstruction with impaction grafting in different types of acetabular defects.
methodsThis is a single-centre retrospective radiographic study of (107) total hip arthroplasty (42 primary and 65 revision) in (104) patients using impaction grafting. The available radiographs were examined for normal, preoperative, immediate postoperative, and last follow-up vertical (Y) and horizontal (X) hip centre. Maximum acetabular defect distance (MADD), presence, and size of the mesh were recorded.
resultsIn type I and II AAOS defects, the post-operative hip centre was not significantly different from the normal hip centre on the contralateral healthy side. In type III defects, there was a significant variation between the normal hip centre and the post-operative hip centre (P value 0.034 and 0.001 for Y and X, respectively). At 44-month follow-up of 36 hips, 31 (86%) hips migrated. The mean migration ± SD was 5.72 ± 3.7, 2, 4.15 ± 1.2, and 11.26 ± 3.9 mm for types I, II, and III, respectively (P value 0.211). Hips with MADD > 15 mm, especially with large mesh sizes migrate significantly more (P value = 0.042, 0.037, and 0.039, respectively).
conclusionHip centre restoration was better, and migration was less for type I and II AAOS rather than for type III. Other options for reconstruction should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31161240What 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.