Cup‐Cage Solution for Massive Acetabular Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Решение «чашка‑клетка» при массивных дефектах вертлужной впадины: систематический обзор и мета‑анализ
2020-06-01
SCID: 54.1/rpr75eew
Discuss with AI
Cochrane EMBASE PubMedPRISMAaseptic looseningcomplication ratecup-cage constructdislocationinfectionmassive acetabular bone defectsnerve injuriesrevision ratesystematic review and meta-analysistotal hip revision
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
Our systematic review compiled multiple studies and evaluated survivorship and clinical outcomes of cup-cage construct usage in the management of massive acetabular bone defects. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Various combinations of "acetabular", "pelvis", "cup cage" and their corresponding synonyms were used to search relevant articles in the Cochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed databases. Basic information of the functional scores, implant revision rate, and complication rate were selected as outcomes for analysis. Finally, a total of 11 articles published between 1999 and 2019 were selected, which include 232 patients with an average age of 68.5 years (range, 30-90). The mean follow-up period was 48.85 months (range, 1-140). Our study shows that the cup-cage construct has a good clinical outcome with a low revision rate and a low complication rate. Improved clinical outcomes of cup-cage constructs were seen with a revision rate of 8% and an all-cause complication rate of 20%. The most commonly reported complication was dislocation, followed by aseptic loosening, infection, and nerve injuries. In summary, it is a promising method for managing large acetabular bone defects in total hip revision.
Key Findings
1
All-cause complication rate for cup-cage constructs was 20%.
2
Cup-cage constructs demonstrated a low revision rate of 8%.
3
Mean patient age was 68.5 years (range 30–90) with mean follow-up 48.85 months (range 1–140).
4
Most common complications were dislocation, then aseptic loosening, infection, and nerve injuries.
5
Overall conclusion: cup-cage construct yields good clinical outcomes and is a promising method for managing large acetabular bone defects in total hip revision.
6
Systematic review of 11 studies (1999–2019) including 232 patients assessed cup-cage constructs for massive acetabular defects.
Research Object
Cup-cage construct used to manage massive acetabular bone defects in total hip revision
Research Subject
Survivorship and clinical outcomes including functional scores, implant revision rate, and complication rates (dislocation, aseptic loosening, infection, nerve injuries) of cup-cage constructs for massive acetabular defects
Publication Details
Publication Date
2020-06-01
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest