Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Standard Versus Custom-Made Acetabular Implants in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Tikhilov, Rashid M; Dzhavadov, Alisagib A; Kovalenko, Anton N; Bilyk, Stanislav S; Denisov, Alexey O; Shubnyakov, Igor I.
Afiliação
  • Tikhilov RM; Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
  • Dzhavadov AA; Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
  • Kovalenko AN; Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
  • Bilyk SS; Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
  • Denisov AO; Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
  • Shubnyakov II; Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
J Arthroplasty ; 37(1): 119-125, 2022 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34598861
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Today, various options are used for the reconstruction of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of using standard acetabular implants (SAIs) and custom-made acetabular implants (CMAIs) in RTHA in cases with extensive acetabular bone loss.

METHODS:

This was a comparative analysis of the results of 106 operations of RTHA performed during the period from January 2013 to December 2019. In 61 cases (57.5%), CMAIs were used. In 45 cases (42.5%), SAIs were implanted.

RESULTS:

The incidence of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component after RTHA in uncontained loss of bone stock of the acetabulum (type III-IV as per the Gross and Saleh classification) using the CMAI was less than that using the SAI (2.4% and 10.0%, respectively). The most significant differences in aseptic loosening rates were noted after implantation of the CMAI and SAI in pelvic discontinuity with uncontained bone defect (0% and 60.0%, respectively; P<.001).

CONCLUSION:

The ideal indications for the use of the CMAI are uncontained defects and pelvic discontinuity with uncontained loss of bone stock (types III-V Gross and Saleh classification). Treatment of these defects with the SAI leads to a higher incidence of aseptic loosening requiring re-revisions. Further observation is required to assess the effectiveness of using the CMAI and SAI in the long-term follow-up period.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Artroplastia de Quadril / Prótese de Quadril Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Artroplastia de Quadril / Prótese de Quadril Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article