4.6 Article

Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component - A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME
卷 83A, 期 11, 页码 1706-1711

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200111000-00014

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR43314] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although cementless acetabular components are routinely used in revision hip surgery, few investigators have evaluated the retention and efficacy of these components in the long term. In the current study, the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a series of arthroplasties performed by one surgeon with a cementless acetabular component were assessed at a minimum of ten years. Methods: From 1986 through 1988, sixty-one consecutive revision total hip arthroplasties were performed in fifty-five patients because of aseptic failure of one or both components of a prosthesis in which both components had been cemented. Twenty-eight patients (thirty-two hips) were alive at a mean of 12.9 years (range, 11.5 to 14.3 years) after the operation. In all of the patients, the acetabular component was revised to a porous-coated Harris-Galante component inserted without cement, and the femoral component was revised to an Iowa component affixed with contemporary cementing techniques. The hips were evaluated clinically and radiographically at a minimum of ten years subsequent to the index revision. No hips were lost to follow-up. Results: None of the acetabular components required revision because of aseptic loosening. Two hips (3%) demonstrated radiographic evidence of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. The polyethylene liner was exchanged during the follow-up period in eight hips. Conclusion: After a minimum of ten years of follow-up, cementless acetabular fixation in revision hip arthroplasty had produced durable results that were markedly better than those reported for acetabular fixation with cement.

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

4.6
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