4.5 Review

Systematic review on outcomes of acetabular revisions with highly-porous metals

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 689-702

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-2145-5

关键词

Highly-porous; Revision; Arthroplasty; Hip; Outcomes; Review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature and report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of highly-porous acetabular cups in revision settings. A literature search of four electronic databases of EMBASE, CINAHL-plus, PubMed, and SCOPUS yielded 25 studies reporting the outcomes of 2,083 revision procedures with highly-porous acetabular components. There was lack of high quality evidence (level I and level II studies) and only two studies with level III evidence, while the remainder were all level IV studies. In addition, a majority of the studies had small sample sizes and had short to mid-term follow-up. The mean age of the patients was 65 years (range, 58-72 years) and the mean follow-up was 3.6 years (range, two to six years). Outcomes evaluated were aseptic survivorship, Harris hip scores, migration rates, incidence of peri-acetabular radiolucencies and radiographic restoration of the hip centre. The mean aseptic survivorship was 97.2 % (range, 80-100 %). The Harris hip scores improved from a mean pre-operative score of 42 points, (range, 29-75 points), to a mean postoperative score of 79 points (range, 69-94 points). The mean incidence of cup migration and prevalence of peri-acetabular radiolucencies was 2.4 % (range, 0-8.8 %) and 4.6 % (range, 0-19 %), respectively, at final follow-up. The vertical hip centre-of-rotation was restored significantly from a mean of 39.2 mm (range, 27.6-50 mm) pre-operatively, to a mean of 24.1 mm (range, 7.4-47 mm), postoperatively. The short-term clinical and radiographic results of highly-porous metals in revision hip arthroplasty are excellent with a low rate of loosening in the presence of both major and minor bone loss.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据