Acetabular revision using pelvic reinforcement devices

Current Opinion in Orthopaedics

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 43-47

  Hicks, David C ^a   Horton, Greg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETABULOPLASTY; ARTHRODESIS; BONE DEFECT; BONE GRAFT; HIP RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

EID: 0036189624     PISSN: 10419918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001433-200202000-00008     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Cost analysis of revision total hip arthroplasty. A 5-year follow-up study
2. Revision of a total hip arthroplasty with a Harris-Galante porous-coated acetabular component inserted without cement: A follow-up note on the results at five to twelve years
3. Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty: A follow-up note regarding results at seven to eleven years
4. Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency
5. Modified cups
6. Jumbo cups and morselized graft
7. High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years
8. High hip center in revision arthroplasty
9. High placement of porous-coated acetabular components in complex total hip arthroplasty
10. High failure rate of bulk femoral head allografts in total hip acetabular reconstructions at 10 years
11. Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen-year-average follow-up
12. Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty
13. Classification and reconstruction in revision acetabular arthroplasty with bone stock deficiency
14. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation
15. Use of reconstruction rings for the management of acetabular bone loss during revision hip surgery
16. The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions
17. Acetabular revision. The role of rings and cages
18. The management of severe acetabular bone loss using structural allograft and acetabular reinforcement devices
19. Acetabular anti-protrusio rings and cages in revision total hip arthroplasty
20. Pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty
21. Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency
22. The use of reinforcement rings to reconstruct deficient acetabula
23. The Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery: A mean follow-up of 12 years
24. Midterm results (5.5-10 years) of acetabular allograft reconstruction with the acetabular reinforcement ring during total hip revision
25. The Butch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: Indications, principles and long-term results
26. Total hip arthroplasty with use of an acetabular reinforcement ring in patients who have congenital dysplasia of the hip. Results at five to fifteen years
27. Acetabular reconstruction with morcellized allograft and ring support: A medium-term review
28. Cemented acetabular reconstruction with the Muller support ring. A minimum five-year clinical and roent-genographic follow-up study
29. Mueller roof reinforcement rings. Medium-term results
30. Acetabular roof reinforcement rings
31. Acetabular revision with the Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage and cancellous allograft bone
32. Resuts of the Muller acetabular reinforcement ring in revision arthroplasty
33. Replacement of deficient acetabulum using Burch-Schneider cages. 22 patients followed for 2-10 years
34. Functional outcome after acetabular revision with roof reinforcement rings
35. Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty
36. Revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of structural acetabular allograft and reconstruction ring: A case series with a 10-year average follow-up
37. Acetabular revision with impacted grafting and a reinforcement ring: 42 patients followed for a mean of 10 years
38. Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up
39. Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock
40. Reconstruction rings and bone graft in total hip revision surgery
41. Acetabular revision with allograft bone. 103 revisions with 3 reconstruction alternatives, followed for 0.3-13 years