SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2020
Cup-Cage Solution for Massive Acetabular Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcome of different reconstruction options using allografts in revision total hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Pooled it
- A pile foundation reconstruction prosthesis for severe acetabular bone defects : principle, design, and mechanical analysis.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- Porous cementless cups combined with trabecular metal augments in revision hip arthroplasty: mid-term outcomes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Acetabular screws placement in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a narrative review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Review
- Comparison of the Trabecular Titanium Acetabular Shell with Burch-Schneider Cages in Revision Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Re-revision Following Failed Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in a Case of Neglected Inferior Dislocation of the Hip: An Interesting Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- [Research progress in Cup-cage reconstruction for patients with chronic pelvic discontinuity after total hip arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Review
- What Are the Functional, Radiographic, and Survivorship Outcomes of a Modified Cup-cage Technique for Pelvic Discontinuity?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024Article
- Bispherical metal augment improved biomechanical stability in severe acetabular deficiency reconstruction: a comparative finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Individualized megaimplants in acetabular revision arthroplasty: what have we learned in the last 15 years?EFORT open reviews · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence planning and 3D printing augmented modules in the treatment of a complicated hip joint revision: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Early outcomes of using custom-made augments in revision total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Acetabular Peri-Prosthetic Fractures-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of jumbo cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Acetabular Revision Arthroplasty Based on 3-Dimensional Reconstruction Technology Using Jumbo Cups.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Pelvic discontinuity: a challenge to overcome.EFORT open reviews · 2021Review
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
Abstract
Our systematic review compiled multiple studies and evaluated survivorship and clinical outcomes of cup-cage construct usage in the management of massive acetabular bone defects. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Various combinations of "acetabular", "pelvis", "cup cage" and their corresponding synonyms were used to search relevant articles in the Cochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed databases. Basic information of the functional scores, implant revision rate, and complication rate were selected as outcomes for analysis. Finally, a total of 11 articles published between 1999 and 2019 were selected, which include 232 patients with an average age of 68.5 years (range, 30-90). The mean follow-up period was 48.85 months (range, 1-140). Our study shows that the cup-cage construct has a good clinical outcome with a low revision rate and a low complication rate. Improved clinical outcomes of cup-cage constructs were seen with a revision rate of 8% and an all-cause complication rate of 20%. The most commonly reported complication was dislocation, followed by aseptic loosening, infection, and nerve injuries. In summary, it is a promising method for managing large acetabular bone defects in total hip revision.
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.