ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
Implantation Accuracy of Custom-Made Acetabular Components With Iliac Stem Fixation for Large Bone Defects in Hip Revision Surgery.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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.
- Implantation Accuracy of Custom-Made Acetabular Components With Iliac Stem Fixation for Large Bone Defects in Hip Revision Surgery.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe treatment of extensive acetabular bone defects presents significant challenges in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Custom-made implants, tailored to patient-specific anatomy via 3D printing, offer potential advantages regarding implant stability and alignment. Precise positioning of these large-volume implants is crucial for primary stability and long-term fixation, but can be surgically demanding, especially when intramedullary iliac press-fit stems are used. In contrast to triflange custom-made implants, data on the implantation accuracy of custom-made acetabular components with iliac stem fixation remain limited. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of implant positioning by comparing preoperatively planned component positions with postoperative radiographic outcomes, focusing on anteversion (AV), inclination (INCL), and the center of rotation (CoR).
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 24 patients with large acetabular defects (Paprosky ≥ 3A) underwent rTHA with custom-made acetabular components with intramedullary press-fit iliac stem fixation between November 2022 and April 2024. Implantation accuracy was evaluated by comparing the planned positions on preoperative CT scans with the actual implant positions observed on 6-week postoperative radiographs using a previously validated methodology. Discrepancies in AV, INCL, and the CoR were analyzed.
resultsA high degree of alignment with preoperative plans was observed. The mean postoperative AV was 9.96° ± 6.4° (planned: 10.2°), and the mean INCL was 46.3° ± 3.2° (planned: 44.6°). The deviations were minor (Δ AV: -0.25°, Δ INCL: 1.7°), confirming the precision of implant placement. Four implants had CoR deviations exceeding 5 mm cranially (mean cranial shift: 1.77 ± 3.97 mm), and five exceeded 5 mm laterally. Most deviations were within clinically acceptable ranges.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that custom-made acetabular components with iliac stem fixation can be implanted with high accuracy. Moreover, our results support the use of standard radiographs for the postoperative assessment of implant positioning precision. This study provides valuable insights into the accuracy of implant placement in complex rTHA cases, highlighting the role of patient-specific implant technologies in enhancing surgical outcomes.
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.