High Failure Rate of a Constrained Acetabular Liner in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 103-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig J. Della Valle ◽  
Dennis Chang ◽  
Scott Sporer ◽  
Richard A. Berger ◽  
Aaron G. Rosenberg ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 442-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asterios Dramis ◽  
Elizabeth Clatworthy ◽  
Stephen A. Jones ◽  
Alun John

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 243-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Grose ◽  
A. González Della Valle ◽  
P. Bullough ◽  
S. Lyman ◽  
I. Tomek ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002110043
Author(s):  
Antonios A Koutalos ◽  
Sokratis Varitimidis ◽  
Konstantinos N Malizos ◽  
Theofilos Karachalios

Purpose: The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate clinical outcomes of tapered fluted stems, either monoblock or modular, in revision total hip arthroplasty. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science and Cochrane databases were systematically searched by 2 researchers. Clinical studies reporting primarily on survival and re-revision rates, and secondarily on subsidence, dislocation, intraoperative fractures, periprosthetic fractures and infection were included. 2 investigators assessed the quality of the studies. Results: 46 studies were included in this review, reporting on 4601 stem revisions. The pooled re-revision rate was 5.1% and long-term survival ranged from 75% to 98.5%. No differences were observed between monoblock and modular stems regarding re-revision rate, dislocation rate, periprosthetic fracture rate or infection rates. Monoblock stems exhibited more subsidence and modular stems displayed more intraoperative fractures. Conclusions: Satisfactory results can be obtained with the use of tapered fluted end-bearing stems. Monoblock stems offer the same clinical results as modular stems.


2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 881-884 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey S. Hagstrom ◽  
Dennis J. Callahan ◽  
James W. Green

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document