Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37395708›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2023

Custom triflange acetabular components for large acetabular defect reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis on 1218 patients.

Demien Broekhuis, Rutger Tordoir, Zoe Vallinga, Jan Schoones, Bart Pijls, Rob Nelissen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Demien BroekhuisDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3125-5028
Rutger TordoirDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0763-1692
Zoe VallingaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jan SchoonesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1120-4781
Bart PijlsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5351-5057
Rob NelissenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1228-4162

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This is a systematic review and meta(regression) analysis to assess the performance of custom triflange acetabular components (CTAC) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision surgery. Implant-related complications, failure rate, functional outcomes and implant and surgical technique-related predictors for outcome were assessed. Methods: This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (2020 CRD42020209700). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library and Emcare were searched. Studies on Paprosky type 3A and 3B or AAOS type 3 and 4 acetabular defects with a minimum follow-up of 12 months and cohorts > 10 patients were included. Results: Thirty-three studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 1235 hips, 1218 patients). The methodological quality of the studies was moderate (AQUILA: 7.4/11 points). Considerable heterogeneity was observed in terms of complications, re-operations and implant failure reporting. The total incidence of implant-related complications was 24%. The incidence of re-operation for any reason was 15%, and the implant failure rate was 12% at a mean of 46.9 months and the post-operative Harris Hip Score improved by a mean of 40 points. Several predictors for outcome were found, such as implant generation, follow-up length and study start date. Conclusions: The use of CTAC in revision THA has satisfactory complication and implant failure rates. The CTAC technique improves post-operative clinical outcomes and the meta-regression analysis showed that there is a clear association between improvements in the CTAC performance and the evolvement of this technique over time.

Indexed as

custom triflange acetabular componentlarge acetabular defectstotal hip arthroplasty revision

Identifiers

PMID37395708
PMCPMC10321047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.