MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.033

Медицинская библиотека · The Journal of arthroplasty · 2015

Trabecular Metal Use in Paprosky Type 2 and 3 Acetabular Defects: 5-Year Follow-Up.

Clement Rhys G E, Ray Andrew G, MacDonald Deborah J, Wade Frazer A, Burnett Richard, Moran Matthew

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

The reconstructive challenge of achieving a stable acetabulum in revision total hip arthroplasties in the presence of major osteolytic lesions has led to debate about the most appropriate surgical strategy to minimize implant-related failures. Trabecular metal (TM) implants have become popular but ongoing surveillance of their performance is required.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical and radiological outcome of a consecutive series of 52 patients (55 hips) who had undergone revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky type 2 or 3 acetabular defects with TM revision acetabular shells between 2002 and 2008.

RESULTS

Four implant failures occurred (2 infections and 2 dislocations). Eleven patients from this cohort died (representing 12 hips) before the 5-year follow-up period giving us a follow-up of 78.2%. Implant survival at 5 years was 92% (95% confidence interval: 80.2%-96.9%). There were no cases of radiological loosening. The mean Oxford hip score was 34 (range, 5-48) at a mean follow-up of 63 months (range, 34-105 months).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the use of TM revision shells for complex acetabular reconstruction yields satisfactory results.

Для цитирования: Clement Rhys G E, Ray Andrew G, MacDonald Deborah J, Wade Frazer A, Burnett Richard, Moran Matthew. Trabecular Metal Use in Paprosky Type 2 and 3 Acetabular Defects: 5-Year Follow-Up.. The Journal of arthroplasty. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.033.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.