ArticleSICOT-J2024
Does the interface between individual 3D acetabular implants and host bone influence the functional outcomes in patients with severe bone loss after revision surgery?
Article in SICOT-J, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is a wide range of commercially produced revision implants for adequate reconstruction of acetabular large bone defects today, however, it is not always possible to achieve long-term survival of these implants. There is an increasing number of scientific publications concerning the use of custom-designed 3D components, which make it possible not only to achieve stable fixation and connect the pelvic bones but also to restore hip joint biomechanics.
objectivesTo evaluate the positioning of 3D acetabular implants after revision hip arthroplasty and its impact on clinical and functional outcomes.
methodswe analyzed results in 48 patients with bone defect types IIIA and IIIB Paprosky types, after revision hip arthroplasty. A prospective study was conducted from 2017 to 2023. Revision arthroplasty due to aseptic loosening of the components was performed in 30 cases and as a second stage of periprosthetic infection treatment in 18 cases.
resultsWe did not achieve a statistically significant difference when using additional flanges and clinical and functional results. In 2 cases we faced aseptic loosening in patients using flanges. In no case were we able to install an implant with 100% adherence to porous structure compared to preoperatively planned adherence. According to the WOMAC and VAS scales, increasing the contact area of the components showed a slight statistical difference in the improvement of clinical and functional results and the reduction of pain.
conclusionsWhen acetabular 3D components adhered to the bone by more than 68%, we did not register a single complication in the postoperative period, and acetabular 3D components adhered to the bone by less than 68%, a total of 8 (16.6%) complications were registered.
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.