ReviewInternational orthopaedics2026
The Kerboull cross-plate: from the birth of a concept to the current indications.
Review in International orthopaedics, 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
purposeReconstruction of major acetabular bone loss remains a demanding challenge during revision total hip arthroplasty. Since its original description, the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device, also known as the Kerboull cross-plate or cage, has been developed to restore the native hip centre of rotation, to protect bone graft from early mechanical overload, and to allow cementation of a conventional full-polyethylene or a dual mobility cup.
methodsThis narrative review traces the evolution of the Kerboull cross-plate from its original conception to its current indications.
resultsWe describe the biomechanical rationale of the device, supported by finite-element analyses demonstrating a marked load-sharing effect that protects the underlying bone graft in comparison with other reinforcement devices or unprotected cemented cups. We detail the surgical technique, as originally reported by Kerboull and Hamadouche, together with subsequent refinements aimed at standardising plate positioning. The principles governing graft selection are discussed: segmental structural defects require a structural graft, whereas morselised graft should be reserved for the filling of contained cavitary defects. The biological and mechanical quality of the graft is dependent on its processing, cryopreserved femoral head allograft being preferable to gamma-irradiated allograft. Finally, we review the mid- to long-term outcomes reported with the Kerboull cross-plate, including the more recent trend towards cementing a dual mobility cup within the device to reduce the risk of instability, and we outline the current indications of this technique of reconstruction.
conclusionThe Kerboull cross-plate retains its place as a reliable and time-tested option within the modern armamentarium for severe acetabular bone loss reconstruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42869993What 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.