ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Acetabular Revision Surgery with Tantalum Trabecular Metal Acetabular Cup for Failed Acetabular Cage Reconstruction with Bone Allografts: A Retrospective Study with Mid- to Long-Term Follow-Up.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trabecular metal cups versus reconstruction cages for primary total hip arthroplasty in the irradiated acetabulum: a nine year comparative cohort study.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cups in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Has Been the Experience So Far?-A Systematic Literature Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acetabular cage reconstruction with bone allografts is among the successful strategies to deal with massive acetabular bone loss. However, the nonbiological fixation nature of cages can compromise long-term success. Tantalum trabecular metal acetabular cups (TM cups) have been used in acetabular revision surgery because of their increased initial stability and good bone ingrowth features. This study was performed to determine whether the bone stock of the acetabulum is enough to support a hemispheric TM cup after failed cage reconstruction with bone allografts. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who received acetabular revision surgery with TM cups after failed cage reconstruction with bone allografts from 2006 to 2017. There were 12 patients (5 males and 7 females) included in this study, with a mean age of 61.5 years (38 to 81) at the time of re-revision surgery. The mean follow-up after re-revision surgery was 8.6 years (2.6 to 13.3). The endpoint was defined as the aseptic loosening of the TM cup and reoperation for any causes. The change in bone stock of the acetabulum between index revision and re-revision was assessed according to the Gross classification for acetabular bone loss. Results: One patient died after eight years of follow-up of a cause not related to hip surgery. Two patients received two-stage revision arthroplasty due to PJI after 3.2 and 9.4 years of follow-up, respectively. The bone stock of the acetabulum was significantly improved between index revision and re-revision surgery (p < 0.0001). The Kaplan−Meier survivorship was 100% with aseptic loosening as the endpoint and 90% and 75% at five- and ten-year follow-up, respectively, with reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. Even cage reconstruction with bone allografts will fail eventually, and the bone stock of the acetabulum will improve after union and incorporation between host bone and allografts. The restored bone stocks will facilitate further revision surgery with hemispheric TM cups. The biological fixation between host bone and tantalum trabecular metal can provide longstanding stability of the TM cup. Conclusions: The results of our study offer a viable option for patients with failed cage reconstruction with bone allografts.
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.