ArticleBone & joint open2022
Biphasic bone graft substitute in revision total hip arthroplasty with significant acetabular bone defects : a retrospective analysis.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Results of an Ultra Short Metaphyseal Filling Cementless Stem in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mean 12.1-Year Follow-up.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Histological Analysis of Acetabular Bone Impaction Grafting According to Slooff 15 Years After Implantation.Case reports in orthopedics · 2026Article
- A Scoping Review of CERAMENT™ Applications in Orthopedic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Clinico-radiological outcomes of surgical fixation for posterior column acetabular fractures, with or without posterior wall involvement.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Article
- Mouldable Collagen-Tricalciumphosphate Is a Safe Carrier for Local Antibiotics-Short-Term Results in Revision Hip Arthroplasty.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
aimsLarge acetabular bone defects encountered in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) are challenging to restore. Metal constructs for structural support are combined with bone graft materials for restoration. Autograft is restricted due to limited volume, and allogenic grafts have downsides including cost, availability, and operative processing. Bone graft substitutes (BGS) are an attractive alternative if they can demonstrate positive remodelling. One potential product is a biphasic injectable mixture (Cerament) that combines a fast-resorbing material (calcium sulphate) with the highly osteoconductive material hydroxyapatite. This study reviews the application of this biomaterial in large acetabular defects.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review at a single institution of patients undergoing revision THA by a single surgeon. We identified 49 consecutive patients with large acetabular defects where the biphasic BGS was applied, with no other products added to the BGS. After placement of metallic acetabular implants, the BGS was injected into the remaining bone defects surrounding the new implants. Patients were followed and monitored for functional outcome scores, implant fixation, radiological graft site remodelling, and revision failures.
resultsMean follow-up was 39.5 months (36 to 71), with a significant improvement in post-revision function compared to preoperative function. Graft site remodelling was rated radiologically as moderate in 31 hips (63%) and strong in 12 hips (24%). There were no cases of complete graft site dissolution. No acetabular loosening was identified. None of the patients developed clinically significant heterotopic ossification. There were twelve reoperations: six patients developed post-revision infections, three experienced dislocations, two sustained periprosthetic femur fractures, and one subject had femoral component aseptic loosening.
conclusionOur series reports bone defect restoration with the sole use of a biphasic injectable BGS in the periacetabular region. We did not observe significant graft dissolution. We emphasize that successful graft site remodelling requires meticulous recipient site preparation.Cite this article:
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.