4.2 Article

Trabecular Titanium acetabular cups in hip revision surgery: mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes

期刊

HIP INTERNATIONAL
卷 28, 期 -, 页码 61-65

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1120700018812992

关键词

Acetabulum; follow-up studies; hip; reoperation; titanium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty can be restored with different surgical techniques. Best results have been observed using porous tantalum cementless cups. Trabecular Titanium (TT) cups were designed to reproduce the structure, mechanical and biological characteristics of trabecular bone. Few clinical studies have been published with these cups. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of patients with large acetabular defects (Paprosky IIb or higher) revised using TT cups. Materials and methods: 64 consecutive patients who underwent revision for total hip arthroplasty (THA) between 2011 and 2015 at our institution were enrolled. All were classified as Paprosky IIb, IIc, IIIa and IIIb. Periprosthetic joint infections and fractures were not included in this study. Radiographic and clinical (Harris Hip Score (HHS)) outcomes were evaluated. Kaplan-Meyer survivorship curve was performed. Results: Complete data of 58 patients (mean follow-up 48.3 months) were analysed. 6 patients underwent a further revision (10.3%). Causes of re-revision were instability (5.2%), infection (3.4%) and aseptic loosening (1.7%). No radiolucent lines or signs of migration were observed. Survivorship was 94.8%. HHS Improved from a mean of 36.5-83.7. Discussion: TT cups demonstrated encouraging results at mid-term follow-up. Cup modularity represented a helpful tool to restore hip rotation centre and to reduce the risk of dislocation. The capacity of trabecular titanium to induce bone growth and the versatility of modularity, make the Delta TT System a very useful aid for surgeons who are more frequently faced with complex revision.

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

4.2
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