ArticlePloS one2019
Quantitative assessment of acetabular bone defects: A study of 50 computed tomography data sets.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical evaluation of bispherical augments in acetabular defect reconstruction and comparative study of different fixation methods.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Automated Acetabular Defect Reconstruction and Analysis for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Computational Modeling Study.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025Article
- Statistical shape models quantify acetabular defects in hip revision surgery: implications for classification and surgical planning.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Bispherical metal augment improved biomechanical stability in severe acetabular deficiency reconstruction: a comparative finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Quantitative Assessment of Acetabular Defects in Revision Hip Arthroplasty Based on 3D Modeling: The Area Increase Ratio (Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Magnesium-based alloys with adapted interfaces for bone implants and tissue engineering.Regenerative biomaterials · 2023Review
- Taking the Next Step in Personalised Orthopaedic Implantation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Modular revision strategy with bispherical augments in severe acetabular deficiency reconstruction.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Statistical Shape and Appearance Models: Development Towards Improved Osteoporosis Care.Current osteoporosis reports · 2021Review
- Reliability and Validity of Acetabular and Femoral Bone Loss Classification Systems in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2020Article
- Primary Stability of Revision Acetabular Reconstructions Using an Innovative Bone Graft Substitute: A Comparative Biomechanical Study on Cadaveric Pelvises.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAcetabular bone defect quantification and classification is still challenging. The objectives of this study were to suggest and define parameters for the quantification of acetabular bone defects, to analyze 50 bone defects and to present the results and correlations between the defined parameters.
methodsThe analysis was based on CT-data of pelvises with acetabular bone defects and their reconstruction via a statistical shape model. Based on this data, bone volume loss and new bone formation were analyzed in four sectors (cranial roof, anterior column, posterior column, and medial wall). In addition, ovality of the acetabulum, lateral center-edge angle, implant migration, and presence of wall defects were analyzed and correlations between the different parameters were assessed.
resultsBone volume loss was found in all sectors and was multidirectional in most cases. Highest relative bone volume loss was found in the medial wall with median and [25, 75]-percentile values of 72.8 [50.6, 95.0] %. Ovality, given as the length to width ratio of the acetabulum, was 1.3 [1.1, 1.4] with a maximum of 2.0, which indicated an oval shape of the defect acetabulum. Lateral center-edge angle was 30.4° [21.5°, 40.4°], which indicated a wide range of roof coverage in the defect acetabulum. Total implant migration was 25.3 [14.8, 32.7] mm, whereby cranial was the most common direction. 49/50 cases showed a wall defect in at least one sector. It was observed that implant migration in cranial direction was associated with relative bone volume loss in cranial roof (R = 0.74) and ovality (R = 0.67).
conclusionWithin this study, 50 pelvises with acetabular bone defects were successfully analyzed using six parameters. This could provide the basis for a novel classification concept which would represent a quantitative, objective, unambiguous, and reproducible classification approach for 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.