EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 8 (2022) SICOT-J, 8 (2022) 49 References
Open Access
Issue
SICOT-J
Volume 8, 2022
Article Number 49
Number of page(s) 8
Section Hip
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022049
Published online 21 December 2022
  1. Fontalis A, Epinette J-A, Thaler M, Zagra L, Khanduja V, Haddad FS (2021) Advances and innovations in total hip arthroplasty. Sicot J 7(26), 1–10. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: Total hip replacement. Lancet 370, 1508–1519. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Frank VP, Michiel M (2019) To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and re-evaluation. Sicot J 5(35), 1–9. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Necas L, Katina S, Uhlarova J, Colton CL (2013) Survival analysis of total hip and knee arthroplasty in Slovakia 2003–2011. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 80(Suppl), 9–67. [Google Scholar]
  5. Placella G, Bettinelli G, Pace V, Salini V, Antinolfi P (2021) Dual mobility for total hip arthroplasty revision surgery: A systematic review and metanalysis. Sicot J 7(18), 1–9. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, et al. (1989) Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 243, 126–137. [Google Scholar]
  7. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 9, 33–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chahine A, Jacques C, Thierry A, Camille S, Kaissar Y (2018) The cross technique for the positioning of Kerboull plate in acetabular reconstruction surgery. Sicot J 4(20), 1–6. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lee PT, Raz G, Safir OA, Backstein DJ, Gross AE (2010) Long-term results for minor column allografts in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(12), 3295–3303. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Patel JV, Masonis JL, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2003) The fate of cementless jumbo cups in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 18(2), 129–133. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jones L, Grammatopoulos G, Singer G (2012) The Burch-Schneider cage: 9-year survival in Paprosky type 3 acetabular defects. Clinical and radiological follow-up. Hip Int 22(1), 28–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tomonori B, Yasuhiro H, Yuta J, Hiroki T, Sammy B, Taiji W, Kazuo K (2020) Posterior versus direct anterior approach in revision hip arthroplasty using Kerboull-type plate. Sicot J 6(2), 1–6. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Benazzo F, Botta L, Scaffino MF, et al. (2014) Trabecular titanium can induce in vitro osteogenic differentiation of human adipose derived stem cells without osteogenic factors. J Biomed Mater Res A 102(7), 2061–2071. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Daniele M, Marco B, Romeo S, Antongiulio B, Robert JO, Marco T, Rossi A, Giovanni Z (2018) Clinical and radiological outcomes of acetabular revision with the Delta Revision TT cup. HIP Int 28(2S), 54–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121, 20–32. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hendricks KJ, Harris WH (2006) High placement of noncemented acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of fifteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 88(10), 2231–2236. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Onsten I, Carlsson AS, Ohlin A, Nilsson JA (1994) Migration of acetabular components, inserted with and without cement, in one-stage bilateral hip arthroplasty. A controlled, randomized study using roentgenstereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76(2), 185–194. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gross AE (1999) Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369, 198–207. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Petrie J, Sassoon A, Haidukewych GJ (2013) Pelvic discontinuity: Current solutions. Bone Joint J 95-B(Suppl A 11), 109–113. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Schmitz M, Hannink G, Gardeniers JWM, Verdonschot N, Slooff T, Schreurs BW (2017) Acetabular reconstructions with impaction bone-grafting and a cemented cup in patients younger than 50 years of age: A concise follow-up, at 27 to 35 years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(19), 1640–1646. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lian YY, Yoo MC, Pei FX, Kim KI, Chun SW, Cheng JQ (2008) Cementless hemispheric acetabular component for acetabular revision arthroplasty: A 5- to 19-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 23(3), 376–382. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Flecher X, Appy B, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Argenson JN (2017) Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips. Int Orthop 41(5), 911–916. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ilyas I, Alrumaih HA, Kashif S, Rabbani SA, Faqihi AH (2015) Revision of type III and type IVB acetabular defects with Burch-Schneider anti-Protrusio cages. J Arthroplast 30(2), 259–264. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Landor I, Vavrik P, Jahoda D, Pokorny D, Tawa A, Sosna A. 2009. The long oblique revision component in revision arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(1), 24–30. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Abolghasemian M, Tangsaraporn S, Drexler M, Barbuto R, Backstein D, Safir O, Kuzyk P, Gross A (2014) The challenge of pelvic discontinuity: Cup-cage reconstruction does better than conventional cages in mid-term. Bone Joint J 96-B(2), 195–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gladnick BP, Fehring KA, Odum SM, Christie MJ, DeBoer DK, Fehring TK (2018) Midterm survivorship after revision total hip arthroplasty with a custom triflange acetabular component. J Arthroplast 33(2), 500–504. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Perticarini L, Ghiara M, Lamberti T, et al (2018) Delta TT revision: A new option for acetabular revisions. Orthop Proc 95(Suppl 34), 479. [Google Scholar]
  28. Steno B, Kokavec M, Necas L (2015) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using trabecular titanium implants. Int Orthop 39, 389–395. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Waters T, Davies N, Whittingham-Jones P, et al. (2015) Acetabular revision with trabecular titanium – 120 cases with a 2 year minimum follow-up. Hip Int 25(Suppl 104), 1120–7000. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pulido L, Rachala SR, Cabanela ME (2011) Cementless acetabular revision: Past, present and future. Revision total hip arthroplasty: The acetabular side using cementless implants. Int Orthop 35, 289–298. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Makita H, Kerboull M, Inaba Y, et al. (2017) Revision total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device and structural allograft for severe defects of the acetabulum. J Arthroplasty 32, 3502–3509. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ceretti M, Panegrossi G, Falez F (2019) Acetabular revision of paprosky iii defects with a new concept shell: A preliminary study on 34 consecutive cases. Science Publishing Group, pp. 2–15. [Google Scholar]
  33. Meo DF, Cacciola G, Bellotti V, et al. (2018) Trabecular titanium acetabular cups in hip revision surgery: Mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes. Hip Int 28, 61–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gallart X, Fernández-Valencia JA, Riba J, et al. (2016) Trabecular titanium TM cups and augments in revision total hip arthroplasty: Clinical results, radiology and survival outcomes. Hip Int 26, 486–491. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Hetaimish BM, et al. (2016) Promising mid-term results with a cup-cage construct for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474, 408–414. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.