ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[Cement in revision arthroplasty-what about the "glacier effect"? : Case studies viewed from different perspectives].
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. 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.
- [Periprosthetic fractures of the knee : Revision arthroplasty].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of operations concerning revision arthroplasty has been increasing continuously in recent years, and it can be assumed that they will continue to increase in the future. If an arthroplasty implant becomes loose, it must be changed. The question often arises as to how the new implant should be fixed in the bone. ADVANTAGES: Revision implants can be inserted into the bone without cement. In the subsequent period, a secondary osseointegration of the implant takes place. Another possibility is to anchor the implant by using bone cement. The advantage of cemented anchorage is that the implant is firmly fixed in the bone, in principle, immediately, and it is possible to fully load the implant directly. Direct postoperative full weight bearing is helpful, especially for older and multimorbid patients, in order to achieve rapid mobilization. PREREQUISITES AND CHALLENGES: When using cement in revision cases, however, there are a few prerequisites and challenges that the surgeon should definitely take into account. In the case of revision, the bone in the former implant bed is often deficient and appears thinned and sclerosed. It is, therefore, important to analyze the bone quality preoperatively on radiographic images and to include it in the planning of the anchoring strategy. In addition, the individual bone quality of the patient must also be taken into account intraoperatively. In any case, it must be clarified whether the basic prerequisites for the sufficient bond strength of the cement with the bone to be formed can still be met. Furthermore, the principles of cementing technique must be strictly observed, and the goal of a perfect cement mantle must be aimed for. If the indication for this is overstated, early loosening of the cemented revision arthroplasty is very likely.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37861705What 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.