ArticleScientific reports2022
Mid-term results in revision hip arthroplasty with impaction bone grafted cup reconstruction for acetabular defects.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The outcomes of acetabular impaction bone grafting using allografts in uncemented cups for acetabular bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Good mid- to long-term survivorship and low rates of aseptic loosening of a cementless primary press-fit acetabular cup for contained defects in revision total hip arthroplasty.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acetabular defects are a challenging condition for surgeons in revision THA. A crucial aim is an anatomical restoration of the centre of rotation (COR) through grafts. The aim of this study was to determine the cup survival after biological restoration of acetabular defects in THA and the effect of Paprosky classification, age, BMI, and number of previous operations on cup survival. Retrospectively patients with a cup exchange and an impaction of cortico-cancellous or bulk grafts between 2009 and 2012 were included with a follow up with a minimum of 5 year. Implant failure was defined as radiographic loosening or explantation of the cup. The acetabular defect situation was classified to Paprosky. 82 patients (58 female 70.7%) were included. 26 patients were not available to contact. 56 patients (40 female 71.4%) remained for survival analysis with mean age of 75.6 ± 8 years. Survival of the cup after 5 years was 90% and after 7.8 years 88%. There was no difference in survival concerning defect classification, type of implant or graft, age, BMI, and number of previous operations. Patients on the follow up reached an HHS of 67.4 ± 19, a WOMAC Score of 33.4 ± 25.4 points and an unsatisfactory result in the SF-36. Impaction bone grafting of acetabular defects is a good option with satisfactory biomechanical results and survival for small defects. Predictive factors for cup survival could not be clarified in our study. So, the correct indication, knowing the limits of the methods and the correct choice of implant allow a defect-oriented approach and are decisive for the success of the operation.
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.