Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Clin Cases. Apr 6, 2020; 8(7): 1223-1231
Published online Apr 6, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i7.1223
Table 3 Comparison of studies reporting reconstructions for Paprosky type III acetabulum bone defects with tantalum metal augments
Ref.Number and Paprosky typeReconstruction technique for defectsMean follow-upMean postoperative hip scoreFailure resulting from aseptic looseningOther complications requiring reoperation
Lingaraj et al[8]17 IIIA, 6 IIIB without pelvic discontinuity21 TM shell-augment; 1 TM shell alone; 1 acetabular component-cage41 mo (range, 24 to 62)Harris hip score 75.7 (range, 53 to 100)02 recurrent instability, 1 early infection with irrigation and debridement
Sporer et al[9]28 IIIAThe TM shell-augment in all cases3.1 yr (range, 1 to 4 )The modified Merle d’Aubigne and postel score 10.601 recurrent instability
Del Gaizo et al[10]37 IIIAThe TM shell-augment in all cases60 mo (range, 26 to 106)Harris hip score 81.5 (range, 27.0 to 99.8)1 (2.7%)5 recurrent instability, 4 infection with irrigation and debridement, 2 periprosthetic femoral fracture
Grappiolo et al[11]42 IIIA, 13 IIIB without pelvic discontinuityThe TM shell-augment in all cases53.7 mo (range, 36 to 91)Harris hip score 90.5 (range, 61 to 100)3 (5.5%)1 recurrent instability
Current study6 IIIB without pelvic discontinuityThe cementless acetabulum component and TM-Cup augment in all cases42 mo (range, 36 to 52)Harris hip score 80.7 (range, 71.5 to 87.5)01 greater trochanteric migration