ArticleEFORT open reviews2026
Acetabular revision surgery revisited: do changing indications influence bone defect management? A comprehensive review.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern bearings have changed reasons for revision hip surgery; however, acetabular bone defects are still a challenging condition. Advanced imaging techniques, including newer 3D preoperative planning, have improved the understanding of bone stock. Current acetabular tools reduce the bone loss during implant removal and are reliable to predict the new reconstruction. Although bone allograft is useful in younger patients with a high lifetime risk for revision, some limitations have been reported for segmental large defects and pelvic discontinuity. Encouraging results are obtained with porous metal augments and custom-made implants in combination or not with bone grafts, but long-term results and cost-effectiveness are controversial. In this review, we aimed to address the best rationale to this complex topic 25 years after the introduction of highly cross-linked polyethylene. Furthermore, we sought to identify whether the lower prevalence of osteolysis eases acetabular revision surgery within the increasing number of re-revision surgeries.
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.