Search for other papers by M M Morlock in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by E Gomez-Barrena in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by D C Wirtz in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by A Hart in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by J P Kretzer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
in the use of these implants. The manufacturers and the regulatory system ‘learn’ from such scenarios, adapting requirements and standards, hopefully preventing future failure. In 2005, total hip, knee and shoulder joint replacements were reclassified
Search for other papers by Theofilos Karachalios in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by George Komnos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Antonios Koutalos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-up. 1 - 4 Following the initial problems which pioneer surgeons noted in the 1960s and 1970s, such as surgical technique, structural implant failures and infection, orthopaedic surgeons in the 1980s faced problems regarding choice of appropriate
Search for other papers by Michele Vasso in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alexander Antoniadis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Naeder Helmy in
Google Scholar
PubMed
explain why, unlike TKA, complications following UKA have distinctive characteristics. The causes of UKA failures can be different depending on the type and design of implant (mobile versus fixed), timing of failure (early or late) and the surgeon who
Search for other papers by Haroon Majeed in
Google Scholar
PubMed
rates of complication and early failure requiring revision, 9 – 12 leading to hesitancy among orthopaedic surgeons to continue using these implants. The current third-generation silastic implants were designed based on dynamic and static joint
Search for other papers by Demien Broekhuis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rutger Tordoir in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Zoe Vallinga in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jan Schoones in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bart Pijls in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rob Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
reporting and end-point definition (e.g. implant survival, failure). This heterogeneity makes valid comparisons between data unreliable ( 13 , 14 ). Therefore, our primary aim was to perform a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis
Upper Limb Unit, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Jetske Viveen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Izaak F. Kodde in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andras Heijink in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Koen L. M. Koenraadt in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michel P. J. van den Bekerom in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Denise Eygendaal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
ranging from 61% to 97%. 5 , 7 This raises questions of whether implant- or fixation-related factors may be related to early failure. Except in the case of silicone RHPs, that have previously proved to be biologically and biomechanically insufficient
Search for other papers by Olivier Guyen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
failure, dislocation and loosening ( Fig. 3 ). Fig. 3 An example of a locking mechanism failure of a constrained tripolar implant. Unacceptably high failure rates have been reported with the use of constrained devices. Berend et al 11
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
and quality of life at one-year follow-up. However, the influence of implant positioning on failure rate and durability is better supported in the literature ( Fig. 2 ). Fig. 2 Fixed-bearing cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA
Search for other papers by Fahima A. Begum in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Babar Kayani in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Samuel D. J. Morgan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Syed S. Ahmed in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sandeep Singh in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Fares S. Haddad in
Google Scholar
PubMed
reasons for implant failure and early revision surgery in UKA. 5 – 7 To help overcome this, there has been a recent surge in robotic UKA. This procedure uses computer technology to preoperatively plan optimal bone resection and implant positioning
Search for other papers by Thorsten Gehrke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mustafa Citak in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mustafa Akkaya in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum poses a significant challenge for orthopedic surgeons, especially when faced with severe bone loss and failure of previous implants ( 1 , 2 ). The strategy for revising the acetabulum is
