ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2022
Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty with Acetabular Bone Defects: Are Biological Grafts Really Better than Synthetic Bone Graft Substitutes?
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Acetabular aseptic loosening due to bone defect in total hip arthroplasty revisions is a great challenge and several solutions have been proposed, but a broadly accepted consensus in the literature has not been reached yet. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic results of acetabular bone defects treatment with biological-only graft or with a mixture of bone graft substitute and biological graft. Methods: 33 patients had revision hip arthroplasty using impaction grafting with biological-only graft (21 patients, Group A) or a 1/3 mixture of allograft and tricalcium phosphate bone graft substitute (12 patients, Group B). Patients were reassessed at a minimum of one year after surgery with new x-rays and the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Results: Survivorship of bone graft was 86% in Group A and 100% in Group B at a mean follow-up of 35 months. No statistical difference between the two groups was found in terms of implants survivorship ( Conclusion: In our experience the use of tricalcium phosphate bone graft substitutes in combination with allo and autograft provides good outcomes, low risk of failure and great clinical and radiographic results. Further investigations on larger samples are needed to impact clinical practice.
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.