Search for other papers by Martin Krismer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
important contribution of individual factors, it is a difficult task to establish well-founded knowledge in this area. This article will deal with dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, implant survival (heat generation, wear, bone quality). Return to
Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, LGI, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, UK
Search for other papers by Sohail Nisar in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jeya Palan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
The Lister Hospital, Chelsea Bridge, London, UK
Centre de l’Arthrose - Clinique du Sport, Bordeaux-Mérignac, France
Search for other papers by Charles Rivière in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mark Emerton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, UK
Search for other papers by Hemant Pandit in
Google Scholar
PubMed
of instruments, errors were frequent. Therefore, MA was introduced as a simple, reproducible method to maximize implant survival by creating a neutral limb axis. Although some studies 28 – 30 have suggested that outliers to neutral alignment have
Search for other papers by E. Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Primitivo Gómez-Cardero in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-thickness cartilage loss at surgery, lateral osteophytes did not compromise long-term functional results or implant survival. Knifsund et al analysed the impact of the pre-operative grade of OA on the risk of re-operation after UKA. 15 They suggested that UKA
Search for other papers by Nanne Kort in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Patrick Stirling in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Peter Pilot in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jacobus Hendrik Müller in
Google Scholar
PubMed
unclear whether it alters complication rates, clinical and functional outcomes, and implant survival. 6 Over the last three years, numerous meta-analyses pooled data from published studies that compared outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional THA
Search for other papers by Maurizio Calcagni in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thomas Giesen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
briefly. Implant longevity was primarily evaluated on the basis of papers with a cumulated implant survival of at least five years, and secondarily, on papers with a follow-up of a minimum of two years in each case. Function was evaluated using well
Osteoarticular Surgery Research, Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research – IdiPAZ (La Paz University Hospital – Autonomous University of Madrid), Madrid, Spain
Search for other papers by E Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Carlos Kalbakdij-Sánchez in
Google Scholar
PubMed
follow-up period ( 18 ). In 2021, Baek et al. compared functional outcomes, activity levels, mortality, implant survival rates, and complications of TKA in patients with PD with those of patients in a control group during a minimum follow-up of 10 years
Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
Search for other papers by Andreas Fontalis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Eustathios Kenanidis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Katharine Bennett-Brown in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Eleftherios Tsiridis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
illustrating the literature search according to the PRISMA statement 17 is also provided ( Fig. 1 ). The primary outcomes were mortality following elective total hip arthroplasty as well as implant survival and revision rate for any reason. Secondary
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Vasileios F Pegios in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Eustathios Kenanidis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
Search for other papers by Stavros Tsotsolis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Michael Potoupnis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Eleftherios Tsiridis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
parameters do not necessarily ensure the longevity and survival of THA. This systematic review aims to thoroughly and critically appraise the available literature evaluating the implant survival and the AL risk of patients receiving BPs after elective THA
Department of Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
South West of London Orthopaedic Elective Centre, Epsom, UK
Search for other papers by Nicholas D. Clement in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marwan Al-Zibari in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Irrum Afzal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by David J. Deehan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Deiary Kader in
Google Scholar
PubMed
), type (clinical, cadaver or saw bones), age, number of patients/specimens, follow up (if applicable), the type of implant used, type of tibial prosthesis, and depending on the aims of the study: implant survival, functional outcome, implant alignment and
Search for other papers by Bülent Atilla in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Patients with neglected developmental dysplasia (DDH) face with early osteoarthritis of the hip, limb length inequality and marked disability while total hip reconstruction is the only available choice.
-
DDH has severe morphologic consequences, with distorted bony anatomy and soft tissue contractures around the hip. It is critical to evaluate patients thoroughly before surgery.
-
Anatomic reconstruction at the level of true acetabulum with uncemented implant is the mainstay of treatment. This requires a subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy, which can be realised using different osteotomy and fixation options.
-
Although a demanding technique with a high rate of related complications, once anatomic reconstruction of the hip is achieved, patients have a remarkably good functional capacity and implant survival during long follow-up periods.
Cite this article: Atilla B. Reconstruction of neglected developmental dysplasia by total hip arthroplasty with subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:65–71. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000026.
