4.5 Article

Highly porous titanium cup in cementless total hip arthroplasty: registry results at eight years

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 1815-1821

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4102-9

关键词

Trabecular; Titanium; Aseptic loosening; Pore; Additive manufacturing; Ti-Por

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeHighly porous cups were developed to improve osseointegration and reduce the rate of aseptic loosening. Highly porous titanium cups could mix the reliability of titanium metal with an enhanced porosity, improving the bony ingrowth. The aim of this report was to assess the survival rates and reasons for revision of a highly porous titanium cup, Fixa Ti-Por (Adler Ortho, Milan, Italy), fabricated using an additive manufacturing.MethodsThe Registry of Prosthetic Orthopedic Implants (RIPO), the Emilia-Romagna region arthroplasty registry, was enquired about cementless cups, implanted since July 2007. Ti-Por cups were compared to all the other cementless sockets, acting as a control group. The survival rates and reasons for revision were evaluated and compared. Comparisons with the same articular couplings were also provided.ResultsWhen all the articular couplings were included, Ti-Por performed better, achieving a statistically higher survival rate than the control group (98.7% vs 97.9%) and a statistically lower incidence of cup aseptic loosening. In case of ceramic on polyethylene couplings, Ti-Por achieved similar survival rate: cup aseptic loosening in Ti-Por group was 0.2%, whereas the control group rated 0.4%. In ceramic-on-ceramic implants, the survival rate was similar in the two groups, Ti-Por achieving a cup aseptic loosening rate of 0.1% (vs 0.14% in the control group).ConclusionHighly porous titanium cups showed trustworthy results at eight years, reducing the rate of aseptic loosening. Longer follow-ups, ion analyses, and pre-clinical in vivo studies would be helpful to better define the reliability of these devices and their advantages.

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