ArticleScientific reports2024
Revision total hip arthroplasty with medial wall defect using bone graft with or without porous metal restrictor.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When a severe medial wall defect is present in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), simple bone grafting (BG) may not be sufficient, and trabecular metal (TM) augmentation is often necessary. We aimed to evaluate whether there were differences in outcomes of revision THA with medial wall defects depending on the use of TM augmentation. Between 2009-2021, 130 patients were classified into two groups: 80 patients undergoing bone grafting (BG group) and 50 patients undergoing both bone grafting and TM augmentation (BG/TM group). We evaluated the postoperative center of rotation (COR) position and changes in vertical and horizontal COR at last follow-up. Additionally, we categorized the fate of the transplanted bone graft into four groups: unchanged, initially changed, resorption-no further intervention, and resorption-revision. The mean horizontal COR changes were -3.50 mm in the BG group and -1.07 mm in the BG/TM group (p = 0.005). In the BG/TM group, a higher proportion of the patients showed unchanged or only initial changes when compared to the BG group (88.0% and 65.0%, respectively). The BG/TM group showed more favorable results regarding horizontal changes in the COR and fate of the bone graft. Therefore, for revision THA in patients with severe medial wall defects, the combined use of bone graft and TM augmentation can be a suitable option.
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.