Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review.
systematic_review · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 23719095.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The best method of revision acetabular arthroplasty remains unclear. Consequently, we reviewed the literature on the treatment of revision acetabular arthroplasty using revision rings (1541 cases; mean follow-up (FU) 5.7 years) and Trabecular Metal, or TM, implants (1959 cases; mean FU 3.7 years) to determine if a difference with regard to revision failure could be determined. Failure rates of the respective implants were compared statistically using a logistic regression model with adjustment for discrepancies in FU time. In our study, TM shows statistically significant decreased loosening rates relative to revision rings for all grades including severe acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. The severe defects appear to benefit the most from TM.
Medical subject headings
- Acetabulum
- Hip Prosthesis
- Prosthesis Failure
Anatomy
- hip
- pelvis