ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Custom-made acetabular implants for revision total hip arthroplasty: postoperative evaluation of the accuracy of implant positioning.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing need for revision total hip arthroplasty due to complications such as bone defects following implant loosening has - among others - led to the development of custom-made acetabular implants. This study evaluated the accuracy of implant positioning measured on AP radiographs and the respective clinical outcomes.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 31 cases involving severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky type IIIa/ IIIb) was conducted. Preoperative planning was based on CT scans, and postoperative evaluation was performed via AP radiographs, focusing on Lewinnek's safe zone for anteversion (AV) and inclination (INCL).
resultsResults showed that 87.1% of the implants were positioned within or on the border of Lewinnek's safe zone for AV and INCL. Mean AV (SD) was 13.9° (8.7°), mean INCL (SD) 46.9° (6.1°). Mean deviations between planning and postoperative results were 7.4° for AV (SD) (5.5°; p = 0.704) and 3.7° for INCL (SD) (5.2°; p = 0.068). Implant survival was 96.7% over a median follow-up (IQR) of 43.0 months (65.0).
conclusionsCorrect positioning of customized acetabular implants could be achieved via assessment on plain AP radiographs using a superimposition method. The results were further emphasized by the low rate of mechanical complications and high implant survival. Lewinnek's safe zone is a good guideline for proper cup positioning but should not be prioritized over primary stability of the implant. Accurate planning is key to achieving both a satisfying position and sufficient osseous integration. Further research involving higher case numbers through a multi-center approach is needed to draw definitive conclusions.
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.