We analysed impaction bone grafting used together with cemented or uncemented fixation in acetabular revision surgery. The overall risk for re-revision did not differ between the cemented and uncemented group. However, aseptic loosening was more common in the cemented group. Several surgical techniques address bone defects in cup revision surgery. Bone impaction grafting, introduced more than thirty years ago, is a biologically and mechanically appealing method. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of bone impaction grafting when used with uncemented and cemented fixation in cup revision surgery. Uncemented cups resting on more than 50% host bone were used as controls.Summary Statement
Background
Comparison of accuracy and precision in measuring wear using 4 commonly used uncemented cup designs shows small differences in mean and data scatter for marker and model-based RSA. The disadvantage with conventional RSA is that implant has to be supplied with tantalum markers, which may be difficult to visualise. This problem can be resolved with model-based RSA, but it is uncertain if this method has the same precision as marker-based RSA to measure wear. We compared these methods and studied different prosthesis geometries represented by four different uncemented cup designs (Trilogy, TMT-Trabecular Metal, Zimmer, Warsaw, USA, Ringloc, Biomet, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana, and ABG, Howmedica International, Staines, UK).Summary
Introduction
