Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):229-35. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035. Epub 2013 May 27.

Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review.

Author information

1
Department of Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery and Spinal Cord Injury, Heidelberg, Germany.

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.

KEYWORDS:

acetabular revision; revision hip arthroplasty; revision rings; trabecular metal

PMID:
23719095
DOI:
10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center