ArticleArthroplasty today2023
Both Acetabular and Femoral Reconstructions With Impaction Bone Grafting in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Case Series and Literature Review.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Salvage re-revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral and acetabular bone defect complicated by periprosthetic joint infection and stem loosening: insights from geriatric orthopedics.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
- When Is a Two-Stage Surgical Procedure Indicated in the Treatment of Pseudotumors of the Hip? A Retrospective Study of 21 Cases and a Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Extensive bone loss on femur and acetabulum posed a big challenge to orthopedists in total hip revision surgeries. Impaction bone grafting (IBG) as a valuable bone preservation technique could effectively address this problem. Either IBG revision on the femoral or acetabular side was well studied, while its use on both sides in one operation was not. The aim of this study is to present the outcomes of IBG on both femoral and acetabular sides at first-time hip revision. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 8 patients (mean follow-up of 5.8 years) undergoing first-time revision with IBG on both acetabular and femoral sides at our institution. The Paprosky classification system was used to classify bone defects. Freeze-dried allografts and cemented prostheses were used in all patients. Postoperative complications and rerevision rates were reported. Results: Five patients presented a Paprosky type IIC acetabular defect, 3 with a type IIIB, IIIA, and IIC defect, respectively. Three patients presented with a type IV femoral defect, 3 with a type IIIB defect, and 2 with a type II defect. Two patients developed complications, while one had an intraoperative femoral fracture and one had delayed wound healing. At the latest follow-up, no patient had rerevisions or operations related to the prosthesis. Conclusions: IBG in combination with cemented prosthesis is a profitable biological reconstruction revision technique that could provide satisfying midterm outcomes. We first propose the use of blood clots mixed with bone grafts for potential bone incorporation enhancement, while its specific effects need to be verified in further studies.
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.