NDLI: Do tantalum and titanium cups show similar results in revision hip arthroplasty?

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial.

Free vascularized fibular graft reconstruction of large skeletal defects after tumor resection.

A three-dimensional method for evaluating changes in acetabular osteolytic lesions in response to treatment.

Quantification of pelvic tilt in total hip arthroplasty.

Femoral anteversion in THA and its lack of correlation with native acetabular anteversion.

Case report: Fresh-stored osteochondral allograft for treatment of osteochondritis dissecans the femoral head.

Failure of the Durom Metasul acetabular component.

Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: does early clinical outcome justify the chance of an adverse local tissue reaction?

Durability of second-generation extensively porous-coated stems in patients age 50 and younger.

Surgical treatment of grade I central chondrosarcoma.

High survival of uncemented proximally porous-coated titanium alloy femoral stems in osteoporotic bone.

Hip resurfacing results for osteonecrosis are as good as for other etiologies at 2 to 12 years.

The Otto Aufranc Award: Identification of a 4 Mb region on chromosome 17q21 linked to developmental dysplasia of the hip in one 18-member, multigeneration family.

Comparing patient outcomes after THA and TKA: is there a difference?

Fear in arthroplasty surgery: the role of race.

Osseous remodeling after femoral head-neck junction osteochondroplasty.

Is there faster recovery with an anterior or anterolateral THA? A pilot study.

THA with Delta ceramic on ceramic: results of a multicenter investigational device exemption trial.

Reintervention after mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Incidence of 'squeaking' after ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty.

Proximally versus fully porous-coated femoral stems: a multicenter randomized trial.

The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists.

Outcomes of isolated acetabular revision.

Do tantalum and titanium cups show similar results in revision hip arthroplasty?

Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of the literature.

Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs.

Iliopsoas bursa injections can be beneficial for pain after total hip arthroplasty.

Incidence of groin pain after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.

Open treatment of femoroacetabular impingement is associated with clinical improvement and low complication rate at short-term followup.

Delta ceramic-on-alumina ceramic articulation in primary THA: prospective, randomized FDA-IDE study and retrieval analysis.

50 years ago in CORR: Technic of the resection-angulation operation for hip-joint disabilities. Henry Milch MD CORR;13:265-270.

High stress conditions do not increase wear of thin highly crosslinked UHMWPE.

Papers presented at the Hip Society meetings 2009: editorial comment.

Biographical sketch: Virgil Pendleton [corrected] Gibney, MD, 1847-1927.

The classic: Chapter XVIII. Operative treatment in chronic articular ostitis. 1884.

Letter to the editor: Clinical comparison of polyethylene wear with zirconia or cobalt-chromium femoral heads.

Hip resurfacing data from national joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us?

Year: 2010 Volume: 468 Issue: 1

Year: 2009 Volume: 467

Year: 2008 Volume: 466

Do tantalum and titanium cups show similar results in revision hip arthroplasty?

Content Provider	World Health Organization (WHO)-Global Index Medicus
Author	Jafari, S. Mehdi Bender, Benjamin Coyle, Catelyn Parvizi, Javad Sharkey, Peter F. Hozack, William J.
Description	Country affiliation: United States Author Affiliation: Jafari SM ( Rothman Institute of Orthopaedics at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.)
Abstract	UNLABELLED: Porous surfaces are intended to enhance osteointegration of cementless implants. Tantalum has been introduced in an effort to enhance osseointegration potential of uncemented components. We therefore compared the clinical outcome of acetabular components with two different porous surfaces. We retrospectively reviewed 283 patients (295 hips) who underwent cementless revision hip arthroplasty with either an HA-coated titanium cup (207 patients, 214 hips) or porous tantalum cup (79 patients, 81 hips). The minimum followup was 24 months in both groups (titanium: average 51.8 months, range, 24-98 months; tantalum: average, 35.4 months, range, 24-63 months). The titanium and tantalum groups had a mechanical failure rate (clinical plus radiographic) of 8% and 6%, respectively. In hips with minor bone deficiency (type 1, 2A, 2B using the classification of Paprosky et al.), 6% of titanium cups and 4% of tantalum cups failed. In hips with major bone deficiency (type 2C, 3), 24% of titanium cups and 12% of tantalum cups developed failure. In the major bone deficiency group, the tantalum cups had fewer numbers of lucent zones around the cup. Eighty-two percent of titanium cups that failed did so at 6 months postoperatively or later, whereas 80% of tantalum cups that failed did so in less than 6 months. Radiographically in the major group, tantalum cups yielded better fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	0009921X
e-ISSN	15281132
DOI	10.1007/s11999-009-1090-5
Journal	Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Researchtextregistered
Issue Number	2
Volume Number	468
Language	English
Publisher	Springer
Publisher Date	2010-02-01
Publisher Place	United States
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Discipline Orthopaedics Acetabulum Surgery Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip Instrumentation Hip Joint Hip Prosthesis Tantalum Titanium Adverse Effects Durapatite Kaplan-meier Estimate Osseointegration Porosity Prosthesis Design Prosthesis Failure Radiography Reoperation Retrospective Studies Stress, Mechanical Surface Properties Time Factors Comparative Study
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Surgery Sports Science

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Clinical and radiographic assessment of cementless acetabular revision with morsellised allografts.

Long-term results for minor column allografts in revision hip arthroplasty.

Do jumbo cups cause hip center elevation in revision THA? A radiographic evaluation.

Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails.

Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties.

Modular tantalum augments for acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty.

Outcome of porous tantalum acetabular components for Paprosky type 3 and 4 acetabular defects.

High complication rate in revision total hip arthroplasty in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

High rate of infection after aseptic revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

Do tantalum and titanium cups show similar results in revision hip arthroplasty?

Similar Documents

Clinical and radiographic assessment of cementless acetabular revision with morsellised allografts.

Long-term results for minor column allografts in revision hip arthroplasty.

Do jumbo cups cause hip center elevation in revision THA? A radiographic evaluation.

Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails.

Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties.

Modular tantalum augments for acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty.

Outcome of porous tantalum acetabular components for Paprosky type 3 and 4 acetabular defects.

High complication rate in revision total hip arthroplasty in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

High rate of infection after aseptic revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

Do tantalum and titanium cups show similar results in revision hip arthroplasty?