Display options
Cite
Tikhilov RM, Dzhavadov AA, Kovalenko AN, et al. Standard Versus Custom-Made Acetabular Implants in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2021;37(1):119-125doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.003.
Tikhilov, R. M., Dzhavadov, A. A., Kovalenko, A. N., Bilyk, S. S., Denisov, A. O., & Shubnyakov, I. I. (2022). Standard Versus Custom-Made Acetabular Implants in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. The Journal of arthroplasty, 37(1), 119-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.003
Tikhilov, Rashid M, et al. "Standard Versus Custom-Made Acetabular Implants in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty." The Journal of arthroplasty vol. 37,1 (2022): 119-125. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.003
Tikhilov RM, Dzhavadov AA, Kovalenko AN, Bilyk SS, Denisov AO, Shubnyakov II. Standard Versus Custom-Made Acetabular Implants in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022 Jan;37(1):119-125. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.003. Epub 2021 Sep 16. PMID: 34598861.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Arthroplasty. 2022 Jan;37(1):119-125. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.003. Epub 2021 Sep 16.

Standard Versus Custom-Made Acetabular Implants in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

The Journal of arthroplasty

Rashid M Tikhilov, Alisagib A Dzhavadov, Anton N Kovalenko, Stanislav S Bilyk, Alexey O Denisov, Igor I Shubnyakov

Affiliations

  1. Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.

PMID: 34598861 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.003

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Today, various options are used for the reconstruction of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of using standard acetabular implants (SAIs) and custom-made acetabular implants (CMAIs) in RTHA in cases with extensive acetabular bone loss.

METHODS: This was a comparative analysis of the results of 106 operations of RTHA performed during the period from January 2013 to December 2019. In 61 cases (57.5%), CMAIs were used. In 45 cases (42.5%), SAIs were implanted.

RESULTS: The incidence of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component after RTHA in uncontained loss of bone stock of the acetabulum (type III-IV as per the Gross and Saleh classification) using the CMAI was less than that using the SAI (2.4% and 10.0%, respectively). The most significant differences in aseptic loosening rates were noted after implantation of the CMAI and SAI in pelvic discontinuity with uncontained bone defect (0% and 60.0%, respectively; P<.001).

CONCLUSION: The ideal indications for the use of the CMAI are uncontained defects and pelvic discontinuity with uncontained loss of bone stock (types III-V Gross and Saleh classification). Treatment of these defects with the SAI leads to a higher incidence of aseptic loosening requiring re-revisions. Further observation is required to assess the effectiveness of using the CMAI and SAI in the long-term follow-up period.

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: custom-made acetabular implants; hip joint; revision total hip arthroplasty; standard acetabular implants; three-dimensional imaging

Publication Types