SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
Outcome of different reconstruction options using allografts in revision total hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Use of Highly Porous 3-D-Printed Titanium Acetabular Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Effect of segmental rim defect morphology on press-fit stability of the cementless acetabular cup: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Complications Rate and Hip Function After Revision of Infected Hip Arthroplasty with Bone Defects using Bone Allografts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
- Custom 3D-printed split-type triflange implants for severe acetabular defects: mid-term clinical outcomes and biomechanical insights from finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Progress in the Application of Porous Tantalum Metal in Hip Joint Surgery.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Review
- Effectiveness of Virtual Surgical Planning and Three-Dimensional Anatomical Models in Radiological Reconstruction of Center of Rotation and Pelvic Brim in Patients with Anterior Column Defects Requiring Revision Hip Arthroplasty.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Use of morselized bone allograft in revision hip arthroplasty for massive acetabular defect: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Biomechanical analysis and clinical observation of 3D-printed acetabular prosthesis for the acetabular reconstruction of total hip arthroplasty in Crowe III hip dysplasia.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
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
introductionSeveral studies have reported good to excellent outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) using allografts for treating severe acetabular bone defects. However, precise information on the impact of allograft type and reconstruction method is not available. MATERIAL AND
methodsSystematic literature search was performed in Medline and Web of Science including patients with acetabular bone loss classified according to the Paprosky classification who underwent rTHA involving the use of allografts. Studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years published between 1990 and 2021 were included. Kendall correlation was applied to determine the relationship between Paprosky grade and allograft type use. Proportion meta-analyses with 95% confidence interval (CI) were performed to summarize the success of various reconstruction options, including allograft type, fixation method, and reconstruction system.
resultsTwenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria encompassing 1561 cases from 1491 patients with an average age of 64 years (range 22-95). The average follow-up period was 7.9 years (range 2-22). Structural bulk and morselized grafts were used in equal proportions for all Paprosky acetabular defect types. Their use increased significantly with the type of acetabular defect (r = 0.69, p = 0.049). The overall success rate ranged from 61.3 to 98.3% with a random effect pooled estimate of 90% [95% CI 87-93]. Trabecular metal augments (93% [76-98]) and shells (97% [84-99]) provided the highest success rates. However, no significant differences between reconstruction systems, allograft types and fixation methods were observed (p > 0.05 for all comparisons).
conclusionOur findings highlight the use of bulk or morselized allograft for massive bone loss independent of Paprosky classification type and indicate similar good mid- to long-term outcomes of the different acetabular reconstruction options using allografts. CLINICAL
trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42020223093.
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.