Loosening After Acetabular Revision: Comparison of Trabecular Metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review

Nicholas A.  Beckmann; Stefan Weiss; Matthias C.M.  Klotz; Matthias Gondan; Sebastian  Jaeger; Rudi G. Bitsch

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035

Loosening After Acetabular Revision: Comparison of Trabecular Metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review

Nicholas A. Beckmann, Stefan Weiss, Matthias C.M. Klotz, Matthias Gondan, Sebastian Jaeger, Rudi G. Bitsch

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.

Original language	English
Journal	Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume	29
Issue number	1
Pages (from-to)	229-235
Number of pages	7
ISSN	0883-5403
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035
Publication status	Published - 2014

Access to Document

10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035

Cite this

@article{ccb5e502816d4c6fb6d1e13f967c4079,

title = "Loosening After Acetabular Revision: Comparison of Trabecular Metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review",

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.",

author = "Beckmann, {Nicholas A.} and Stefan Weiss and Klotz, {Matthias C.M.} and Matthias Gondan and Sebastian Jaeger and Bitsch, {Rudi G.}",

year = "2014",

doi = "10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "229--235",

journal = "Journal of Arthroplasty",

issn = "0883-5403",

publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Loosening After Acetabular Revision

T2 - Comparison of Trabecular Metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review

AU - Beckmann, Nicholas A.

AU - Weiss, Stefan

AU - Klotz, Matthias C.M.

AU - Gondan, Matthias

AU - Jaeger, Sebastian

AU - Bitsch, Rudi G.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035

DO - 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 23719095

AN - SCOPUS:84878005226

SN - 0883-5403

VL - 29

SP - 229

EP - 235

JO - Journal of Arthroplasty

JF - Journal of Arthroplasty

IS - 1

ER -

Loosening After Acetabular Revision: Comparison of Trabecular Metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this