ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Trabecular Metal Augments During Complex Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- THA for DDH: replacement principles and techniques - acetabular side.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- [Advances in application of digital orthopedic technology in total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of hip].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- The use of porous titanium acetabular augments in primary total hip arthroplasty for hip dysplasia or rapidly destructive coxopathy.Bone & joint open · 2025Article
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
Background: Trabecular metal augments (TMAs) have been extensively used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) to address acetabular bone defects. However, limited data exists regarding TMA utilization during primary THA. This study aims to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of TMAs used during primary THA. Methods: A single-institution retrospective case series of primary THA patients treated with TMA between 2010 and 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, complications, and revisions were recorded. Cup position, center of rotation, leg length, and radiolucent lines were assessed radiographically. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compute implant survivorship. Results: Twenty-six patients (30 hips) were included with average age of 52.6 ± 15.3 years (range: 22-78) and mean follow-up of 4.1 ± 2.1 years (range: 2.0-8.9). Most TMAs were indicated for developmental dysplasia of the hip (n = 18; 60.0%). On average, hip center of rotation was lowered 1.5 ± 1.3 cm and lateralized 1.2 ± 1.5 cm, while leg length and global offset were increased by 2.4 ± 1.2 cm and 0.4 ± 1.0 cm, respectively. At final follow-up, 3 hips (10.0%) required revision: one (3.3%) for aseptic loosening and 2 (6.7%) for instability. No patients had progressive radiolucent lines at final follow-up. Five-year survival with aseptic loosening and all-cause revision as endpoints was 100% (95% confidence interval: 90.0%-100.0%) and 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 81.3%-100.0%), respectively. One patient required revision for aseptic loosening after the 5-year mark. Conclusions: Trabecular metal augmentation during primary THA demonstrates satisfactory early to mid-term outcomes. TMA is a viable option for complex primary THA when bone loss is encountered or secondary support is required. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.