ArticleOrthopedic reviews2020
Reconstruction options and outcomes for acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indications, complications, and clinical outcomes of fixation and acute total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of acetabular fractures: A systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Pooled it
- Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Long-term follow-up of bone density changes in total hip arthroplasty: comparative analysis from a randomized controlled trial of a porous titanium construct shell vs. a porous coated shell.International orthopaedics · 2024Trial
- A prospective randomized study, use of closed suction drainage after revision hip arthroplasty may lead to excessive blood loss.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- The Reconstructive Pelvic Anatomy classification system : a valid and reliable classification system for pelvic reconstruction.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- CT protocols for lower limb arthroplasty: the Stanmore hip and knee protocols.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Graft Incorporation and Cup Migration in Acetabular Impaction Bone Grafting for Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1093 Hips.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- "Cup-in-Cup Technique" in the Management of Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty: Early to Midterm Results.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Article
- Biomechanical comparison between custom-made enhanced triflange and quadri-flange acetabular components for the treatment of Paprosky IIIB acetabular bone defects.Bone & joint research · 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
- Complex Revisions in Total Hip Arthroplasty Amidst COVID-19 Delays: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- A Rare Case of Staphylococcus Caprae Periprosthetic Hip Infection with Unusual Clinical Presentation.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Acetabular revision with moderate-to-severe bone loss using a trabecular titanium cup-cage construct with impaction grafting.Orthopedic reviews · 2025Article
- Relating total hip replacement and acetabular cup positioning with outcome: A systematic review.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Virtual Surgical Planning and Three-Dimensional Anatomical Models in Radiological Reconstruction of Center of Rotation and Pelvic Brim in Patients with Anterior Column Defects Requiring Revision Hip Arthroplasty.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Value of Computed Tomography Scan in Three-dimensional Planning and Intraoperative Navigation in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2024Review
- Article
- Both Acetabular and Femoral Reconstructions With Impaction Bone Grafting in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Case Series and Literature Review.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Outcomes of Impaction Bone Grafting in the Management of Acetabular Defects with the Use of Uncemented Acetabular Cups: Do Autografts and Irradiated Femoral Head Allografts Integrate?Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Two-stage revision in periprosthetic joint infection of the hip using a new intraoperatively molded articulating spacer design.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Revision total hip arthroplasty in the setting of acetabular bone loss is a challenging procedure and requires a solid understanding of current acetabular reconstruction options. Despite major developments in the field of revision hip surgery in recent decades, reconstruction of acetabular defects remains a major problem in order to achieve primary stability and durable fixation without sacrificing additional bone stock. Although there are several ways to classify acetabular bone defects, the Paprosky classification system is the most commonly used to describe the defects and guide treatment strategy. An understanding of the bone defects associated with detailed pre-operative assessment and planning are essential elements in order to achieve satisfactory outcomes. Multiple acetabular reconstructive options are currently available including impaction bone grafting with metal mesh, reinforcement rings and antiprotrusio cage, structural allografts, cementless hemispherical cups, extra-large "jumbo cups", oblong cups, modular porous metal augments, cup-cage constructs, custom- made triflange cups, and acetabular distraction. To date, debate continues as to which technique is most effective due to the lack of long-term studies of modern reconstruction systems. Further long-term studies are necessary to assess the longevity of the different implants. The purpose of this study was to review the current literature and provide a comprehensive understanding of the available reconstruction options with their clinical outcomes.
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.