Trabecular metal versus non-trabecular metal acetabular components for acetabular revision surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:13
|
作者
Shen, Xianyue [1 ]
Qin, Yanguo [1 ]
Li, Yang [2 ]
Tang, Xiongfeng [1 ]
Xiao, Jianlin [2 ]
机构
[1] Second Hosp Jilin Univ, Dept Orthoped, Changchun 130041, Jilin, Peoples R China
[2] Jilin Univ, China Japan Union Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Changchun 130033, Jilin, Peoples R China
基金
中国博士后科学基金;
关键词
Total hip arthroplasty; Acetabular revision; Trabecular metal; TOTAL HIP-ARTHROPLASTY; POROUS TANTALUM SHELLS; RETROSPECTIVE COHORT; CUPS; RISK; SCAFFOLDS; SURVIVAL; REDUCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106597
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The objective of this study was to compare cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of trabecular metal (TM) and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery.& nbsp;Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for comparative studies that reported cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of TM and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery. Primary outcomes included cup survival, aseptic loosening, dislocation, and infection.& nbsp;Results: The meta-analysis included 6 studies that involved 13,864 total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions who underwent acetabular revision surgery with TM (n = 5,619) or non-TM (n = 8,245) cups. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in cup survival using re-revision for any reason or aseptic loosening as the endpoint following acetabular revision surgery with TM or non-TM cups (HR = 0.96; [95% CI, 0.84-1.09]; HR = 1.29; [95% CI, 0.70-2.38]). Pooled data indicated that the overall incidence of adverse events for TM or non-TM cups was 6.8% (382/5,289) and 9.0% (725/8,083), respectively, and not significantly different (OR = 0.91; [95% CI, 0.80-1.04]). The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower (OR = 0.75; [95% CI, 0.58-0.96]; OR = 0.70; [95% CI, 0.54-0.90]) and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher (OR = 1.53; [95% CI, 1.22-1.91]) for TM compared to non-TM cups.& nbsp;Conclusion: This review was the first to use reconstructed time-to-event data to find that there was no difference in survival of TM and non-TM cups in acetabular revision surgery. Overall, fewer adverse events were associated with the use of TM compared to non-TM cups, but the difference was not significant. The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher for TM compared to non-TM cups. This information is expected to guide orthopedic surgeons in the selection of appropriate acetabular components for THA revision.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A commentary on ?Trabecular metal versus non-trabecular metal acetabular components for acetabular revision surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis? (Int J Surg 2022;100:106597) Comment
    Su, Qiang
    Wan, Xufeng
    Wang, Duan
    Zhou, Zongke
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 103
  • [2] Trabecular Metal Versus Non-Trabecular Metal Acetabular Components and the Risk of Re-Revision Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Matharu, Gulraj S.
    Judge, Andrew
    Murray, David W.
    Pandit, Hemant G.
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2018, 100 (13) : 1132 - 1140
  • [3] Loosening After Acetabular Revision: Comparison of Trabecular Metal and Reinforcement Rings. A Systematic Review
    Beckmann, Nicholas A.
    Weiss, Stefan
    Klotz, Matthias C. M.
    Gondan, Matthias
    Jaeger, Sebastian
    Bitsch, Rudi G.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2014, 29 (01) : 229 - 235
  • [4] Management of severe bone loss in acetabular revision using a trabecular metal shell
    Flecher, Xavier
    Sporer, Scott
    Paprosky, Wayne
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2008, 23 (07) : 949 - 955
  • [5] Early Results of 827 Trabecular Metal Revision Shells in Acetabular Revision
    Skytta, Eerik T.
    Eskelinen, Antti
    Paavolainen, Pekka O.
    Remes, Ville M.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2011, 26 (03) : 342 - 345
  • [6] Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss
    Abolghasemian, M.
    Tangsataporn, S.
    Sternheim, A.
    Backstein, D.
    Safir, O.
    Gross, A. E.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2013, 95B (02) : 166 - 172
  • [7] Trabecular Metal Used for Major Bone Loss in Acetabular Hip Revision
    Davies, Jonah Hebert
    Laflamme, G. Yves
    Delisle, Josee
    Fernandes, Julio
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2011, 26 (08) : 1245 - 1250
  • [8] A comparison of acetabular impaction grafting and trabecular metal for revision arthroplasty
    Rowan, Fiachra E.
    Gorenchtein, Mike
    Aslam, Shoaib
    Condon, Finbarr
    Masterson, Eric L.
    HIP INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 26 (04) : 350 - 354
  • [9] Migration of the Trabecular Metal Monoblock Acetabular Cup System
    Kostakos, Athanasios T.
    Macheras, Georgios A.
    Frangakis, Constantinos E.
    Stafilas, Kosmas S.
    Baltas, Dimitrios
    Xenakis, Theodoros A.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2010, 25 (01) : 35 - 40
  • [10] Acetabular Revisions Using Trabecular Metal Cups and Augments
    Van Kleunen, Jonathan P.
    Lee, Gwo-Chin
    Lementowski, Peter W.
    Nelson, Charles L.
    Garino, Jonathan P.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2009, 24 (06) : 64 - 68