We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Porous titanium construct cup compared to porous coated titanium cup in total hip arthroplasty. A randomised controlled trial.
International Orthopaedics 2015 May
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if a new titanium cup with increased porosity resulted in different periacetabular bone loss and migration compared to a porous coated cup.
METHODS: Fifty-one patients with primary hip osteoarthritis were randomized to either a cup with porous titanium construct backside (porous titanium group, n = 25) or a conventional porous coated titanium cup (control group, n = 26). The primary outcome variable was change in periacetabular bone mineral density two years after surgery measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Secondary outcomes were implant fixation measured with radiostereometry (RSA) and clinical outcome scores.
RESULTS: The pattern of bone remodelling was similar in the two groups with almost complete restoration to baseline values. BMD diminished in the two proximal zones and increased in the two distal zones. After minimal migration up to six months all implants in both groups became stable. We found no difference between the two groups in clinical outcome scores.
CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled trial on a new porous titanium cup we found, compared to the control group, no clinically relevant differences regarding periacetabular bone preservation, implant fixation or clinical outcome up to two years postoperatively.
METHODS: Fifty-one patients with primary hip osteoarthritis were randomized to either a cup with porous titanium construct backside (porous titanium group, n = 25) or a conventional porous coated titanium cup (control group, n = 26). The primary outcome variable was change in periacetabular bone mineral density two years after surgery measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Secondary outcomes were implant fixation measured with radiostereometry (RSA) and clinical outcome scores.
RESULTS: The pattern of bone remodelling was similar in the two groups with almost complete restoration to baseline values. BMD diminished in the two proximal zones and increased in the two distal zones. After minimal migration up to six months all implants in both groups became stable. We found no difference between the two groups in clinical outcome scores.
CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled trial on a new porous titanium cup we found, compared to the control group, no clinically relevant differences regarding periacetabular bone preservation, implant fixation or clinical outcome up to two years postoperatively.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app