Antiprotrusio Cages for Acetabular Revision

2018 ◽  
pp. 125-135
Author(s):  
Antonio Coscujuela ◽  
Jose Luis Agullo ◽  
Daniel Rodriguez-Perez
Keyword(s):  
Acetabular Revision

Mid-term results of a cementless primary press-fit cup in acetabular revision surgery

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Kolbe ◽  
B Zimmer ◽  
P Matheis ◽  
M Streit ◽  
T Gotterbarm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Revision ◽  
Press Fit ◽  
Mid Term Results

scholarly journals Reconstruction options for acetabular revision

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica D Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Acetabular Revision

scholarly journals Clinical and Radiological Results over the Medium Term of Isolated Acetabular Revision

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Piolanti ◽  
Lorenzo Andreani ◽  
Paolo Domenico Parchi ◽  
Enrico Bonicoli ◽  
Francesco Niccolai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Groin Pain ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Acetabular Revision ◽  
Acetabular Cup ◽  
Medium Term ◽  
Retrospective Design ◽  
Radiological Results ◽  
Functional Scores ◽  
Clinical And Radiological Results

Acetabular cup loosening is associated with pain, reduced function, and instability of the implant. If such event happens while the femoral implant is in a satisfactory position and is well fixed to the bone, isolated acetabular revision surgery is indicated. The aim of this single-center retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results over the medium term (12-month follow-up mean 36, max 60) of isolated acetabular revisions surgery using a porous hemispheric revision shell matched with a cemented all-poly cup and large diameter femoral head (>32). 33 patients were enrolled. We collect any relevant data from the clinical board. Routine clinical and radiographic examinations were performed preoperatively; the postoperative follow-up was made at 1, 3, and 6 months and yearly thereafter. At the last available follow-up, we report satisfactory improvement of functional scores in all the patients; 2 patients (6.1%) showed thigh pain and only 4 hips (12.11%) presented mild groin pain; all the femoral components are well fixed and there were no potential or pending rerevisions. With bias due to the follow-up and to the retrospective design of the study, we report clinical, functional, and radiological satisfactory results.

The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 959-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan W. Wachtl ◽  
Maximilien Jung ◽  
Roland P. Jakob ◽  
Emanuel Gautier
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Revision

Bone Defect Determines Acetabular Revision Surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (10_suppl) ◽  
pp. 33-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo García-Cimbrelo ◽  
Eduardo García-Rey
Keyword(s):  
Bone Defect ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Revision

scholarly journals The use of morselized allografts without impaction and cemented cage support in acetabular revision surgery: a 4- to 9-year follow-up

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Huifeng Ding ◽  
Yuanqing Mao ◽  
Bin Yu ◽  
Zhenan Zhu ◽  
Huiwu Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Revision

Cement-in-Cement Acetabular Revision

2018 ◽  
pp. 467-474
Author(s):  
Eustathios Kenanidis ◽  
Eleftherios Tsiridis ◽  
Eric Swanton ◽  
William Farrington
Keyword(s):  
Acetabular Revision

The Fate of Stable Femoral Components Retained During Isolated Acetabular Revision

2002 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph T. Moskal ◽  
Francis H. Shen ◽  
Thomas E. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Acetabular Revision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document