Acetabular reconstruction with a custom-made triflange acetabular component through direct anterior approach – A case report

Eemeren, Anthony Van; Vanlommel, Jan; Vandekerckhove, Maxence

doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2020.02.006

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6 Se han publicado artículos sobre dicha elección terapéutica, como el de Van Eemeren y cols. 7 quienes también presentan un caso clínico operado con cotilo "personalizado", pero por vía anterior.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

¿Son los implantes “personalizados” una solución en la cirugía de revisión acetabular? A propósito de un caso

Garrido Ferrer,

Marco Díaz,

Mairal Sanromán

et al. 2023

Rev. Asoc. Arg. Ort. y Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Se presenta a un paciente de 73 años que había sido sometido a dos revisiones de prótesis de cadera debido a una infección crónica por un microorganismo multirresistente. Acude a nuestro centro tras un primer tiempo quirúrgico. En la radiografía simple y la tomografía computarizada, se observan un defecto femoral tipo IV y un defecto acetabular tipo IIIA de Paprosky. Tras un control clínico y análisis de laboratorio, se decide la reconstrucción acetabular mediante un implante “personalizado” y un vástago tumoral. A los 2 años, el paciente evoluciona favorablemente: deambula con bastón y sin dolor. El implante está estable y en posición normal, no hubo recidiva infecciosa.

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

¿Son los implantes “personalizados” una solución en la cirugía de revisión acetabular? A propósito de un caso

Garrido Ferrer,

Marco Díaz,

Mairal Sanromán

et al. 2023

Rev. Asoc. Arg. Ort. y Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A close look into the literature reveals a similar trend. While the number of studies describing the results after DAA primary hip arthroplasty is rapidly increasing, there is a lack of literature on the use of the DAA for revision arthroplasty [ 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Whether the lack of available literature and, therefore, the lack of experience within the surgical community causes surgeons to refrain from revising patients via the DAA or whether the DAA is rather not suitable for revision arthroplasty has so far remained largely unanswered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reasons for revision were aseptic loosening and periacetabular osseous defects in 58 hips (three with chronic pelvic discontinuity, two with acute pelvic discontinuity and medial cup protrusion), metal-on-metal pseudotumor in two hips, and recurrent hip dislocation in one hip. The mean age at the time of surgery was 69 years and the mean body mass index was 26 kg/m 2 (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revision Arthroplasty Through the Direct Anterior Approach Using an Asymmetric Acetabular Component

Prodinger

Lazic

Horas³

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite increasing numbers of primary hip arthroplasties performed through the direct anterior approach (DAA), there is a lack of literature on DAA revision arthroplasty. The present study was performed in order to evaluate outcomes and revision rates after revision through the DAA using an asymmetric acetabular component with optional intra- and extramedullary fixation. In a retrospective cohort study, we analyzed prospectively collected data of 57 patients (61 hips, 43 female, 18 male) who underwent aseptic acetabular component revision through the DAA with the abovementioned implant system between January 2015 and December 2017. The mean follow-up was 40 months (12–56). Survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. All complications were documented and functional outcomes were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed an estimated five-year implant survival of 97% (confidence interval CI 87–99%). The estimated five-year survival with revision for any cause was 93% (CI 83–98%). The overall revision rate was 6.6% (n = 4). Two patients had to undergo revision due to periprosthetic infection (3.3%). In one patient, the acetabular component was revised due to aseptic loosening four months postoperatively. Another patient suffered from postoperative iliopsoas impingement and was treated successfully by arthroscopic iliopsoas tenotomy. Two (3.3%) of the revised hips dislocated postoperatively. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 35 (2–66) preoperatively to 86 (38–100) postoperatively (p < 0.001). The hip joint’s anatomical center of rotation was restored at a high degree of accuracy. Our findings demonstrate that acetabular revision arthroplasty through the DAA using an asymmetric acetabular component with optional intra- and extramedullary fixation is safe and practicable, resulting in good radiographic and clinical midterm results.

show abstract

Acetabular defect management and revision arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach

Holzapfel¹,

Corten

Goldberg³

et al. 2022

Oper Orthop Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acetabular reconstruction with a custom-made triflange acetabular component through direct anterior approach – A case report

Cited by 7 publications

References 11 publications

¿Son los implantes “personalizados” una solución en la cirugía de revisión acetabular? A propósito de un caso

¿Son los implantes “personalizados” una solución en la cirugía de revisión acetabular? A propósito de un caso

Revision Arthroplasty Through the Direct Anterior Approach Using an Asymmetric Acetabular Component

Acetabular defect management and revision arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About