↓ Skip to main content

Long-term clinical outcome of acetabular cup revision surgery: comparison of cemented cups, cementless cups, and cemented cups with reinforcement devices

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Long-term clinical outcome of acetabular cup revision surgery: comparison of cemented cups, cementless cups, and cemented cups with reinforcement devices
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00590-016-1763-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasuo Kokubo, Hisashi Oki, Daisuke Sugita, Kohei Negoro, Kenichi Takeno, Tsuyoshi Miyazaki, Hideaki Nakajima

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes and Kaplan-Meier survivorship of patients who underwent revision surgeries of the acetabular cup that had sustained aseptic loosening. We reviewed 101 consecutive patients (120 hips; 10 men 11 hips; 91 women 109 hips; age at surgery 66 years; range 45-85) who underwent acetabular component revision surgery, at a follow-up period of 15.6 years (range 10-32). To evaluate the state of the acetabulum, acetabular bony defects were classified according to the AAOS classification based on intraoperative findings: type I (segmental deficiencies n = 24 hips), type II (cavity deficiency n = 48), type III (combined deficiency n = 46), and type IV (pelvic discontinuity n = 2). The Harris hip score improved from 42.5 ± 10.8 (mean ± SD) before surgery to 74.9 ± 14.6 points at follow-up. The survival rates of the acetabular revision surgery with cemented, cementless, and cemented cups plus reinforcement devices were 74, 66, and 82 %, respectively. The difference in the survival rate between the cemented and cementless group was marginal (p = 0.048 Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon, p = 0.061 log-rank), probably due to the early-stage failure cases in the cementless group. The cementless and reinforcement groups included nine early-stage failure cases. To prevent early-stage failure, we recommend the cementless cups for types I and II acetabular bone defects with adequate contact between host bone and acetabular component, and the cemented cup with or without reinforcement devices, together with restoration of bone stock by impaction or structured bone grafting, for cases lacking such contact.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 23%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 58%
Engineering 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,317,110
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#541
of 877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,625
of 300,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#6
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 877 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,491 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.