User Guide
Why can I only view 3 results?
You can also view all results when you are connected from the network of member institutions only. For non-member institutions, we are opening a 1-month free trial version if institution officials apply.
So many results that aren't mine?
References in many bibliographies are sometimes referred to as "Surname, I", so the citations of academics whose Surname and initials are the same may occasionally interfere. This problem is often the case with citation indexes all over the world.
How can I see only citations to my article?
After searching the name of your article, you can see the references to the article you selected as soon as you click on the details section.
 Views 15
 Downloands 2
İlk Total Kalça Protezi Revizyonu Sonrasında Tekrar Revizyona Sebep Olan Faktörler: Orta Dönem Sonuçlar
2019
Journal:  
Bezmialem Science
Author:  
Abstract:

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.

Keywords:

Factors That Reveal Revision After The First Total Colour Protease Review: Middle-Term Results
2019
Journal:  
Bezmialem Science
Author:  
Abstract:

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.

Citation Owners
Information: There is no ciation to this publication.
Similar Articles












Bezmialem Science

Field :   Sağlık Bilimleri

Journal Type :   Uluslararası

Metrics
Article : 636
Cite : 91
Bezmialem Science