1989
DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(89)80020-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of cementless acetabular component migration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
170
0
8

Year Published

1999
1999
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 489 publications
(184 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
170
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Loosening was analyzed using the following criteria for the femur and the acetabular cup: acetabular cup stability was evaluated with the Massin et al method analyzing the distance between femoral head center and landmark along a vertical axis (the distance between the center of the cup and the teardrop line) and horizontal axis (distance between the center of the cup and the vertical line through the teardrop) [15]. A difference between the postoperative value and at last followup, greater than 3°, was considered as migration.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Loosening was analyzed using the following criteria for the femur and the acetabular cup: acetabular cup stability was evaluated with the Massin et al method analyzing the distance between femoral head center and landmark along a vertical axis (the distance between the center of the cup and the teardrop line) and horizontal axis (distance between the center of the cup and the vertical line through the teardrop) [15]. A difference between the postoperative value and at last followup, greater than 3°, was considered as migration.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The HXLPE was analyzed using the Martell technique for measuring wear [28]. Radiographs were evaluated for loosening defined as a change in component position of greater than 5 mm or a circumferential radiolucent line of 2 mm or greater [31]. The acetabulum and femur were evaluated for evidence of osteolysis defined as a nonlinear radiolucency greater than 5 mm of the bone adjacent to the prosthesis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Definite loosening was defined as acetabular migration of 2 mm or more in the horizontal or vertical direction, with implant rotation or screw breakage. Probable loosening was defined by a radiolucent line greater than 1 mm through all three zones of the acetabulum without migration, rotation, or screw breakage [19]. The grafted bone was considered to be integrated if trabeculae were continuous between the host bone and the grafts, and grafts were considered fully absorbed when the grafted bone visible immediately after surgery no longer was visible [17].…”
Section: Postoperative Recovery and Assessment Of Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%