ArticleInternational orthopaedics2022
Modular revision strategy with bispherical augments in severe acetabular deficiency reconstruction.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bispherical Metal Augment-enabled Controllable Acetabular Distraction for Chronic Pelvic Discontinuity: Mid-term Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Retrospective Single-center Case Series.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of bispherical augments in acetabular defect reconstruction and comparative study of different fixation methods.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Bispherical metal augment improved biomechanical stability in severe acetabular deficiency reconstruction: a comparative finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cups in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Has Been the Experience So Far?-A Systematic Literature Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of jumbo cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeReconstruction of severe acetabular deficiency is extremely challenging in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions. Novel bispherical augments were designed to fill acetabular bone loss and facilitate restoration of hip center of rotation (HCOR). Current study aims to compare the outcomes of bispherical augments and tantalum augments.
methodsBetween July 2017 and December 2018, bispherical augments (BA group) were implanted in 25 patients (25 hips) and 22 patients (22 hips) underwent porous tantalum augments (TA group) reconstruction in revision THA. Clinical and radiographic results were evaluated for 25 hips in BA group and 20 hips in TA group at the final follow-up. The mean duration of follow-up was 2.9 years (range, 2.2 ~ 3.7) in BA group and 2.9 years (range, 2.3 ~ 3.8) in TA group.
resultsHarris hip scores, HCOR, and leg length discrepancy (LLD) correction did not differ between the treatment groups. The bispherical augments were located more closer to the medial-superior part (zone II) of acetabular shell while the majority of tantalum augments were located at the lateral-superior part (zone I) (P = 0.010). More screws were used in the BA group for augment fixation (mean 2.1 vs. 1.3) (P = 0.000). There was no evidence of loosening or migration in all hips. Only one dislocation occurred in BA group and treated with closed reduction, no recurrence of instability up to the final follow-up.
conclusionThe clinical and radiological outcomes of bispherical augments were comparable with tantalum augments; this technique was a reliable alternative method in severe acetabular deficiency reconstruction.
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.