Kullanım Kılavuzu
Neden sadece 3 sonuç görüntüleyebiliyorum?
Sadece üye olan kurumların ağından bağlandığınız da tüm sonuçları görüntüleyebilirsiniz. Üye olmayan kurumlar için kurum yetkililerinin başvurması durumunda 1 aylık ücretsiz deneme sürümü açmaktayız.
Benim olmayan çok sonuç geliyor?
Birçok kaynakça da atıflar "Soyad, İ" olarak gösterildiği için özellikle Soyad ve isminin baş harfi aynı olan akademisyenlerin atıfları zaman zaman karışabilmektedir. Bu sorun tüm dünyadaki atıf dizinlerinin sıkça karşılaştığı bir sorundur.
Sadece ilgili makaleme yapılan atıfları nasıl görebilirim?
Makalenizin ismini arattıktan sonra detaylar kısmına bastığınız anda seçtiğiniz makaleye yapılan atıfları görebilirsiniz.
 Görüntüleme 15
 İndirme 2
İlk Total Kalça Protezi Revizyonu Sonrasında Tekrar Revizyona Sebep Olan Faktörler: Orta Dönem Sonuçlar
2019
Dergi:  
Bezmialem Science
Yazar:  
Özet:

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors that led to re-revision surgeries in patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasties (THA). Methods: A total of 352 revision THAs in 274 hips of 252 patients (January 2001-December 2012) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with a history of a major component revision surgery, replacement of the modular components, debridement and irrigation with liner exchange in the presence of infection and a two-stage revision surgery were included in the study. The mean follow-up period after the revision surgery was 7.5 (range: 2 to 15) years. Results: A re-revision surgery was required in 17.6% of the index THA revision patients (62 THA re-revisions/352 THA revisions). The mean time between the index revision and re-revision surgeries was 60.4 (range: 0.5 to 348) months. The most common reason for the second revision surgery was aseptic loosening (38 THA revisions; 61.2%), followed by instability (8 THA revisions; 12.9%) and infection (6 THA revisions; 9.1%). When the re-revision surgery was taken as end point for assessing the survival rate after the index revision surgery, the cumulative survival rate 10 years after the first revision surgery was found 70.8%. No significant relationship was established between age, gender and the type of fixation and the rate of repeat revisions. However, re-revision rates were significantly higher in acetabular-only component revision cases in comparison to other or both component revisions. Conclusion: In our revision series, the major factor that necessitated a re-revision following index revision surgery was aseptic loosening, followed by instability.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Factors That Reveal Revision After The First Total Colour Protease Review: Middle-Term Results
2019
Yazar:  
Özet:

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors that led to re-revision surgeries in patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasties (THA). Methods: A total of 352 revision THAs in 274 hips of 252 patients (January 2001-December 2012) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with a history of a major component revision surgery, replacement of the modular components, debridement and irrigation with liner exchange in the presence of infection and a two-stage revision surgery were included in the study. The average follow-up period after the revision surgery was 7.5 (range: 2 to 15) years. Results: A re-revision surgery was required in 17.6% of the index THA revision patients (62 THA re-revisions/352 THA revisions). The average time between the index revision and re-revision surgeries was 60.4 (range: 0.5 to 348) months. The most common reason for the second revision surgery was aseptic loosening (38 THA revisions; 61.2%), followed by instability (8 THA revisions; 12.9%) and infection (6 THA revisions; 9.1%). When the re-revision surgery was taken as the end point for assessing the survival rate after the index revision surgery, the cumulative survival rate 10 years after the first revision surgery was found 70.8%. No significant relationship was established between age, gender and the type of fixation and the rate of repeated revisions. However, re-revision rates were significantly higher in acetabular-only component revision cases in comparison to other or both component revisions. Conclusion: In our revision series, the major factor that necessitated a re-revision following index revision surgery was aseptic loosening, followed by instability.

Atıf Yapanlar
Bilgi: Bu yayına herhangi bir atıf yapılmamıştır.
Benzer Makaleler












Bezmialem Science

Alan :   Sağlık Bilimleri

Dergi Türü :   Uluslararası

Metrikler
Makale : 636
Atıf : 91
Bezmialem Science