4.5 Article

Evaluation results of using GAP II acetabular cage for acetabulum in revision total hip arthroplasty

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 101, Issue 47, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032056

Keywords

acetabular cage; GAP II; hip arthroplasty; reconstructive surgery; revision arthroplasty

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the use of GAP II acetabular cage in total hip arthroplasty. The results showed a significant improvement in the Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) after surgery, indicating that the use of GAP II acetabular cage is desirable in hip revision surgery.
Acetabular revision arthroplasty with major bone loss is one of the most difficult operations in hip arthroplasty, The graft augmentation prosthesis (GAP) has been designed particularly as an implant for revision acetabular reconstruction. We evaluated the use of GAP II acetabular cage in revision of acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. From 2009 to 2014, we performed revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with acetabular defects by cage (GAP II) in patients referred to Milad and Erfan Hospitals, Tehran, Iran. We included all patients in class 3a and 3b of Paprosky bone loss classification and type III bone loss according to the system of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. We used SPSS software Ver 19 and descriptive tests, Chi square and independent t-test were used for analysis. There were 221 men (71.99%) and 86 women (28.01%) with an average age of 51.3 +/- 21.7 years (range, 35-86 years). The Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) improved significantly at the last follow-up compared with the preoperative MHHS (P < .001). The mean MHHS was 40 (range, 29-44) preoperatively and 92 (range, 86-95) at the last follow-up. There were no major intraoperative complications during acetabular reconstruction. Our findings showed that using GAP II acetabular cage in the restoration of acetabulum in hip revision surgery is significantly desirable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available