ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Mid-term results of reconstruction rings used in combination with modular tantalum augments for Paprosky type III acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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.
- Mid-term results of reconstruction rings used in combination with modular tantalum augments for Paprosky type III acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The combined use of reconstruction rings and modular trabecular metal (TM) augments can be a viable individual treatment in selected patients with large severe acetabular bone defects. However, clinical data on the outcome of this surgical technique is limited. This study aimed to evaluate mid-term results of reconstruction rings used in combination with modular TM augments for severe acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 23 patients with Paprosky type III A or B acetabular defects who underwent revision surgery using a reconstruction ring with a cemented cup in combination with a modular TM augment. 16 patients had type III A defects and 7 patients suffered from type III B defects. Clinical outcome was assessed using patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs). CT scans were used to assess preoperative bone loss and plain radiographs were used to determine postoperative implant migration. Blood tantalum concentrations were measured at latest follow-up and compared to a control group of patients without metal implants. Results: 18 patients could be contacted. 9 patients underwent a complete clinical and radiological follow-up examination as well as a blood test. The cumulative survival rate at 7.4 years with the endpoint 'acetabular component revision for any reason' was 86.7% (95% confidence interval 56%-96%). At the most recent follow-up two patients (9%) had undergone revision surgery due to aseptic loosening of the acetabular construct. Three patients showed radiological signs of loosening of the reconstruction ring without clinical symptoms. The PROMs improved significantly to the latest follow-up. Blood tantalum concentrations were elevated in the study group (0.06 µg/L) compared to controls (0.002 µg/L) ( Conclusions: In this study, favourable mid-term (mean 7.4 years) clinical and radiological outcomes of modular TM augments in combination with a reinforcement ring and cemented revision cups for individual reconstructing major acetabular defects were observed. Aseptic loosening is the main reason for revision, whereby the TM augment was firmly osseointegrated in all cases. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective case series.
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.