Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33201283›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Percutaneous cementoplasty of periprosthetic loosening: can interventional radiologists offer an alternative to revision surgery?

A J Prestat, D Dalili, A Rudel, F Torre, L J Pavan, P Boileau, N Amoretti

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intervertebral Body Implant Salvage: Stabilization by Bone Augmentation.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

A J PrestatDepartment of MSK Radiology, CHU Pasteur 2, NICE University Hospital, Hospital PASTEUR 2, 30 Voie Romaine, 06002, Nice, France. alexandreprestat@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4703-1544
D DaliliNuffield Orthopedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Windmill Rd, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
A RudelDepartment of MSK Radiology, CHU Pasteur 2, NICE University Hospital, Hospital PASTEUR 2, 30 Voie Romaine, 06002, Nice, France.
F TorreDepartment of MSK Radiology, CHU Pasteur 2, NICE University Hospital, Hospital PASTEUR 2, 30 Voie Romaine, 06002, Nice, France.
L J PavanDepartment of MSK Radiology, CHU Pasteur 2, NICE University Hospital, Hospital PASTEUR 2, 30 Voie Romaine, 06002, Nice, France.
P BoileauDepartment of Orthopedic and Sports Surgery, Pasteur 2 Hospital, University Institute of Locomotion and Sports (IULS), 30, Voie Romaine, 06000, Nice, France.
N AmorettiDepartment of MSK Radiology, CHU Pasteur 2, NICE University Hospital, Hospital PASTEUR 2, 30 Voie Romaine, 06002, Nice, France.
Hôpital Pasteur · FRKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate feasibility and validate both safety and efficiency of radiological percutaneous periprosthetic bone cementoplasty (RPPBC) performed under local anesthesia as an alternative minimally invasive treatment of aseptic implant loosening.

methodsIn this case series, seven patients (mean age 81 years, range 73 to 89 years, 2 men and 5 women) were enrolled between February 2011 and January 2020 with confirmed aseptic loosening of orthopedic implants. One patient presented with tibial component loosening of an unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, one with glenoid component loosening from a reverse shoulder arthroplasty, one femoral gamma nail, and four presented with pedicle screw loosening after staged posterior lumbar interbody fusion. All patients underwent clinical, biochemical, and imaging assessments to confirm the diagnosis of aseptic loosening. All benefited from RPPBC under dual CT and fluoroscopic guidance. All procedures were performed under local anesthesia by an experienced radiologist. Preprocedural, immediate and 6-month post-cementoplasty pain levels on a visual analogue scale (VAS), and functional outcomes were evaluated. Immediate and 6-month postprocedural CTs were performed to evaluate the treated region.

resultsAll RPPBC were well tolerated by patients throughout the procedure. None of the patients suffered from local or systemic infection post-RPPBC, or periprosthetic fractures. No recurrent implant loosening was observed. Six patients were pain free at 6 months. All patients expressed functional improvements during validated outcome score evaluations.

conclusionRPPBC appears to be an efficient and reliable treatment strategy for aseptic loosening of orthopedic implants in elderly patients deemed unfit for revision surgery. KEY POINTS: • Radiological percutaneous periprosthetic bone cementoplasty offers immediate and long-lasting pain relief in elderly frail patients, or those deemed unfit for revision surgery despite presenting with symptomatic aseptic loosening of orthopedic implants. • Radiological percutaneous periprosthetic bone cementoplasty brings quick and long-lasting improvements in clinical functional outcomes and offer effective pain reduction, thereby improving the overall quality of life. • Radiological percutaneous periprosthetic bone cementoplasty is a safe, quick, reliable, and well-tolerated minimally invasive procedure which can be easily performed under simple locoregional anesthesia and requires short-term hospital stay.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeCementoplastyAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeRadiologistsReoperationTreatment OutcomeCementoplastyMinimally invasive surgical proceduresMultidetector computed tomographyProsthesis failureRadiology, interventional

Identifiers

PMID33201283
OpenAlexW3103197952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.