ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
A systematic review of custom 3D-printed acetabular components in revision arthroplasty for the management of extensive acetabular defects.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2025. 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.
- Assessment of Custom-Made Acetabular Implants for Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Concise Follow-up, at a Minimum of 5 Years.The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Multiple papers have been published focusing on the outcomes of custom 3D-printed acetabular components for revision arthroplasty in the management of extensive acetabular defects. However to our knowledge this is the first systematic review on the topic; we have reviewed outcomes and compared to the different methods of acetabular reconstruction. Our primary objective was to ascertain component survivorship and follow-up durations of these components within literature. Secondary objectives were to review their clinical outcomes and the limitations of the published studies. Methods: 5 databases were interrogated for publications from January 1st Results: The search yielded 183 articles following elimination of duplicates. Then the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria a total of 16 articles were finally included. A total of 283 hips were included in the analysis. The mean age was 65 (range 22-90 in studies that reported age range). The average follow-up was 22.8 months, with mean follow-up ranging from 12 to 65 months. At an average follow-up of 22.8 months the acetabular component survivorship rate was 97.7 %. The mean complication rate was 16.5 %, the re-operation rate was 5.4 %. Conclusion: Our study presents to our knowledge the first systematic review of custom 3DAC in the setting of extensive acetabular defects. These components appear to offer an efficacious treatment modality in this complex setting, early results suggest both low failure rates and positive clinical outcome data. This reconstructive option allows the surgeon to maximise primary stability whilst minimising further bone loss and attempt to restore hip biomechanics in a patient cohort who often have had multiple previous revisions.
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.