SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2012 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 2

Acetabular reconstruction by impacted cancellous allografts in cementless total hip arthroplasty revision

Çimentosuz total kalça protezi revizyonunda impakte kansellöz allogreft ile asetabulum rekonstrüksiyonu

Ömer Faruk BİLGEN
MÜHAMMET SADIK BİLGEN
Tevfik ÖNCAN
Mutlu DANIŞ
Pages
120–125
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There was a significant correlation between migration and follow-up time (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the primary and secondary stability, where 100% or virtually 100% of the uncemented acetabular component contacted with impacted cancellous allografts, focusing especially on the amount of graft used and rim contact.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Fifteen cases of acetabular reconstruction using impacted cancellous allografts and cementless porous-coated component in which 100% or virtually 100% of the component contacted only with the allograft were reviewed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There was a significant correlation between migration and follow-up time (p
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the primary and secondary stability, where 100% or virtually 100% of the uncemented acetabular component contacted with impacted cancellous allografts, focusing especially on the amount of graft used and rim contact. Methods: Fifteen cases of acetabular reconstruction using impacted cancellous allografts and cementless porous-coated component in which 100% or virtually 100% of the component contacted only with the allograft were reviewed. Mean follow-up was 97.5 (range: 58 to 130) months after revision. The Harris hip score was used to evaluate clinical results. Radiographic evaluations were done using standard anteroposterior views obtained at the final follow-up. Results: Two patients underwent re-revision. The mean Harris hip score of the remaining 13 patients was 88.3±11.9 (range: 68 to 100) at the final follow-up. Early postoperative radiographs showed mean angle of inclination of 45° (range: 30° to 55°). There was a mean migration of 6.2±7.8 (range: 0 to 29) mm and the migration amount did not differ according to rim contact (p=0.054). There was no correlation between migration and amount of graft used (p>0.05). There was a significant correlation between migration and follow-up time (p

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, revizyon kalça artroplastisinde impakte spongioz allogreft üzerinden yapılan asetabuler komponent tespiti sonrası sağlanan primer ve sekonder stabilitenin değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı. Çalışma planı: İmpakte kansellöz allogreft ve çimentosuz poroz kaplı komponentin %100ünün veya %100e yakınının allogreft ile temas ettiği durumlarda 15 olguda gerçekleştirilen asetabulum rekonstrüksiyonu değerlendirildi. Revizyon sonrası ortalama takip süresi 97.5 (dağılım: 58-130) ay idi. Klinik sonuçların değerlendirilmesinde Harris kalça skorundan yararlanıldı. Radyografik değerlendirmeler son kontrollerde alınan ön-arka grafi görüntülerine dayanarak yapıldı. Bulgular: İki hastaya tekrar revizyon yapıldı. Kalan 13 hastanın son kontroldeki ortalama Harris kalça skoru 88.3±11.9 (dağılım: 68-100) idi. Ameliyat sonrası erken dönem grafilerinde ortalama inklinasyon açısı 45° (dağılım: 30°-55°) olarak ölçüldü. Ortalama migrasyon 6.2±7.8 (dağılım: 0-29) mm idi ve bu mesafe kenar temasına bağlı olarak değişim göstermedi (p=0.054). Migrasyon ve kullanılan greft miktarı arasında korelasyon yoktu (p>0.05). Migrasyon ve takip süresi arasında anlamlı korelasyon vardı (p

🔖

Cite This Article

BİLGEN, Ö. F., BİLGEN, M. S., ÖNCAN, T., DANIŞ, M. (2012). Acetabular reconstruction by impacted cancellous allografts in cementless total hip arthroplasty revision. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 2, 120–125. https://ajindex.com/articles/354693

References (14)

  1. Toms AD, Barker RL, Jones RS, Kuiper JH. Impaction bone-grafting in revision joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:2050-60
  2. Cuckler JM. Management strategies for acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002;17(4 Suppl 1):153-6
  3. Brubaker SM, Brown TE, Manaswi A, Mihalko WM, Cui Q, Saleh KJ. Treatment options and allograft use in revision total hip arthroplasty. The acetabulum. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22(7 Suppl 3):52-6
  4. Padgett DE, Kull L, Rosenberg A, Sumner DR, Galante JO. Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. Three to six-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:663-73
  5. Tanzer M, Drucker D, Jasty M, McDonald M, Harris WH: Revision of the acetabular component with an uncemented Harris-Galante porous-coated prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74:987-94
  6. Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG, Bhatt RD, Sheinkop MB, Quigley LR, Galante JO. Cementless acetabular revision. Evaluation at an average of 10.5 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;369:179-86
  7. Lachiewicz PF, Poon ED. Revision of a total hip arthroplasty with a Harris-Galante porous-coated acetabular component inserted without cement. A follow-up note on the results at five to twelve years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:980-4
  8. Chareancholvanich K, Tanchuling A, Seki T, Gustilo RB. Cementless acetabular revision for aseptic failure of cemented hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;(361):140-9
  9. Dorr LD, Wan Z. Ten years of experience with porous acetabular components for revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995;(319):191-200. 10. van Haaren EH, Heyligers IC, Alexander FGM, Wuisman PI. High rate of failure of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:296-300
  10. Strömberg CN, Herberts P. Cemented revision total hip arthroplasties in patients younger than 55 years old. A multicenter evaluation of second-generation cementing technique. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:489-99
  11. Murphy SB. Management of acetabular bone stock deficiency. J Arthroplasty 2005;20(4 Suppl 2):85-90
  12. Paprosky WG, Burnett RS, Martin EL. Current topics in revision total hip replacement: acetabular deficiency and its management. Tech Orthop 2001;16:227-36
  13. Paprosky WG, Magnus RE. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;(298):147-55
  14. Gross AE, Duncan CP, Garbuz D, Mohamed EM. Revision arthroplasty of the aceta