nach oben

International Orthopaedics

Erschienen in:

13.09.2018 | Review Article

Acetabular reinforcement rings associated with allograft for severe acetabular defects

verfasst von: Emmanuel Gibon, Luc Kerboull, Jean-Pierre Courpied, Moussa Hamadouche

Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Acetabular revisions with severe bone defects can be challenging procedures. Several grading systems have been set into place to help the surgeon adequately gauge the degree of bone loss within the acetabulum. Internationally innovative research in orthopedics and bio-engineering has helped with progression of successful techniques and rings to re-establish the normal anatomy of the hip. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes of the different acetabular reinforcement rings in the setting of severe acetabular defects. A successive report of relevant data from the literature of multiple techniques will be provided. The procedures include the cup-cage, the Müller ring, the Ganz Ring, the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device (KARD), the graft augmentation prosthesis (GAP) ring, and the Burch-Schneider ring. The main focus of this overview is rings only; other devices such as trabecular augments, custom-made cages, or oblong cups are not discussed. Furthermore, a special emphasis on the surgical technique of the KARD is also given. Procedures using these rings are usually associated with bone grafts either bulk or morselized. When considering the available data on these various rings used for reconstruction of the severely damaged acetabulum, the cup-cage, the KARD, and the Burch-Schneider ring appear to be reliable options for more successful long-term outcomes.

Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J, Zhao K, Mowat F, Lau E (2009) Primary and revision arthroplasty surgery caseloads in the United States from 1990 to 2004. J Arthroplast 24(2):195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.11.015 CrossRef

Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M (2005) Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(7):1487–1497. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02441 CrossRefPubMed

Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ (2014) Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(8):624–630. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00285 CrossRefPubMed

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222 CrossRefPubMed

Inacio MCS, Graves SE, Pratt NL, Roughead EE, Nemes S (2017) Increase in total joint arthroplasty projected from 2014 to 2046 in Australia: a conservative local model with international implications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(8):2130–2137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5377-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota RE, Toms AD (2015) The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J 97-B(8):1076–1081. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B8.35170 CrossRefPubMed

Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(1):128–133. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00155 CrossRefPubMed

Hanna SA, Somerville L, McCalden RW, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ (2016) Highly cross-linked polyethylene decreases the rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene at 13 years’ follow-up. Bone Joint J 98-B(1):28–32. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36527 CrossRefPubMed

Shen C, Tang ZH, Hu JZ, Zou GY, Xiao RC, Yan DX (2014) Does cross-linked polyethylene decrease the revision rate of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene? A meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(7):745–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2014.07.015 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Bitsch RG, Loidolt T, Heisel C, Ball S, Schmalzried TP (2008) Reduction of osteolysis with use of Marathon cross-linked polyethylene. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of five years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(7):1487–1491. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00991 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Epinette J-A, Jolles-Haeberli BM (2016) Comparative results from a National Joint Registry hip data set of a new cross-linked annealed polyethylene vs both conventional polyethylene and ceramic bearings. J Arthroplast 31(7):1483–1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.041 CrossRef

12.

Scemama C, Anract P, Dumaine V, Babinet A, Courpied JP, Hamadouche M (2016) Does vitamin E-blended polyethylene reduce wear in primary total hip arthroplasty: a blinded randomised clinical trial. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3320-2

13.

Scemama C, Dora C, Langlois J, Hamadouche M (2015) Minimum five-year wear rate of metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene in primary total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 39(6):1051–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2609-2 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Mu Z, Tian J, Wu T, Yang J, Pei F (2009) A systematic review of radiological outcomes of highly cross-linked polyethylene versus conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 33(3):599–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0716-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Oral E, Muratoglu OK (2011) Vitamin E diffused, highly crosslinked UHMWPE: a review. Int Orthop 35(2):215–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1161-y CrossRefPubMed

16.

Delaunay C, Hamadouche M, Girard J, Duhamel A, So FG (2013) What are the causes for failures of primary hip arthroplasties in France? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(12):3863–3869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2935-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Dammerer D, Putzer D, Glodny B, Petersen J, Arrich F, Krismer M, Biedermann R (2018) Occult intra-operative periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum may affect implant survival. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4084-7

18.

Engh CA, Glassman AH, Griffin WL, Mayer JG (1988) Results of cementless revision for failed cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:91–110

19.

Gustilo RB, Pasternak HS (1988) Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:111–119

20.

D'Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG, Steinberg ME, Stulberg SD, Wedge JH (1989) Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 243:126–137

21.

Gross AE, Allan DG, Catre M, Garbuz DS, Stockley I (1993) Bone grafts in hip replacement surgery. The pelvic side. Orthop Clin North Am 24(4):679–695PubMed

22.

Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni Asaleh L, Jaroszynski G, Wong P, Woodgate I, Davis A, Gross AE (2001) Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 19(1):50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-0266(00)00021-8 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplast 9(1):33–44CrossRef

24.

Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2004) Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:96–100CrossRef

25.

Hallstrom BR, Golladay GJ, Vittetoe DA, Harris WH (2004) Cementless acetabular revision with the Harris-Galante porous prosthesis. Results after a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(5):1007–1011CrossRef

26.

Park DK, Della Valle CJ, Quigley L, Moric M, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2009) Revision of the acetabular component without cement. A concise follow-up, at twenty to twenty-four years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(2):350–355. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00302 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Templeton JE, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2001) Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(11):1706–1711CrossRef

28.

Trumm BN, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Johnston RC (2012) Revision with cementless acetabular components: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(21):2001–2004. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00058 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Boscainos PJ, Kellett CF, Maury AC, Backstein D, Gross AE (2007) Management of periacetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181560c6c CrossRefPubMed

30.

Garcia-Cimbrelo E (1999) Porous-coated cementless acetabular cups in revision surgery: a 6- to 11-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 14(4):397–406CrossRef

31.

Goodman S, Saastamoinen H, Shasha N, Gross A (2004) Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 19(4):436–446CrossRef

32.

Jasty M, Harris WH (1990) Salvage total hip reconstruction in patients with major acetabular bone deficiency using structural femoral head allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72(1):63–67CrossRef

33.

Hooten JP, Engh CA, Engh CA (1994) Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76(3):419–422CrossRef

34.

Kwong LM, Jasty M, Harris WH (1993) High failure rate of bulk femoral head allografts in total hip acetabular reconstructions at 10 years. J Arthroplast 8(4):341–346CrossRef

35.

Pollock FH, Whiteside LA (1992) The fate of massive allografts in total hip acetabular revision surgery. J Arthroplast 7(3):271–276CrossRef

36.

Garbuz D, Morsi E, Gross AE (1996) Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(5):693–697CrossRef

37.

Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2005) Modular acetabular augments: composite void fillers. Orthopedics 28(9):971–972CrossRef

38.

Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE (2009) Acetabular revision using an anti-protrusion (ilio-ischial) cage and trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(7):870–876. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.22181 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Abolghasemian M, Tangsaraporn S, Drexler M, Barbuto R, Backstein D, Safir O, Kuzyk P, Gross A (2014) The challenge of pelvic discontinuity: cup-cage reconstruction does better than conventional cages in mid-term. Bone Joint J 96-B(2):195–200. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B2.31907 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Hetaimish BM, Kuzyk PR, Safir OA, Gross AE (2016) Promising mid-term results with a cup-cage construct for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):408–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4210-4 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Sculco PK, Ledford CK, Hanssen AD, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG (2017) The evolution of the cup-cage technique for major acetabular defects: full and half cup-cage reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(13):1104–1110. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00821 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Haentjens P, Handelberg F, Casteleyn PP, Opdecam P (1986) The Müller acetabular support ring. A preliminary review of indications and clinical results. Int Orthop 10(4):223–230CrossRef

43.

Schatzker J, Glynn MK, Ritter D (1984) A preliminary review of the Müller acetabular and Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio support rings. Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery. Archiv Fur Orthopadische Und Unfall-Chirurgie 103(1):5–12CrossRef

44.

Korovessis P, Stamatakis M, Baikousis A, Katonis P, Petsinis G (1999) Mueller roof reinforcement rings. Medium-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 362:125–137CrossRef

45.

van der Linde M, Tonino A (2001) Acetabular revision with impacted grafting and a reinforcement ring: 42 patients followed for a mean of 10 years. Acta Orthop Scand 72(3):221–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470152846510 CrossRefPubMed

46.

Schlegel UJ, Bitsch RG, Pritsch M, Clauss M, Mau H, Breusch SJ (2006) Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2-17 years. Acta Orthop 77(2):234–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670610045966 CrossRefPubMed

47.

Massin P, Tanaka C, Huten D, Duparc J (1998) Treatment of aseptic acetabular loosening by reconstruction combining bone graft and Müller ring. Actuarial analysis over 11 years. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 84(1):51–60PubMed

48.

Gill TJ, Siebenrock K, Oberholzer R, Ganz R (1999) Acetabular reconstruction in developmental dysplasia of the hip: results of the acetabular reinforcement ring with hook. J Arthroplast 14(2):131–137CrossRef

49.

Siebenrock KA, Trochsler M, Sadri H, Ganz R (2001) Hooked roof cup in revision of difficult loose hip prosthesis cups. Results after a minimum of 10 years. Orthopade 30(5):273–279CrossRef

50.

Gerber A, Pisan M, Zurakowski D, Isler B (2003) Ganz reinforcement ring for reconstruction of acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(12):2358–2364CrossRef

51.

Hourscht C, Abdelnasser MK, Ahmad SS, Kraler L, Keel MJ, Siebenrock KA, Klenke FM (2017) Reconstruction of AAOS type III and IV acetabular defects with the Ganz reinforcement ring: high failure in pelvic discontinuity. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(8):1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2731-x CrossRefPubMed

52.

Duffy GP, O'Connor MI, Brodersen MP (2007) Fatigue failure of the GAP ring. J Arthroplast 22(5):711–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.12.108 CrossRef

53.

Buttaro MA, de la Rosa DM, Comba F, Piccaluga F (2012) High failure rate with the GAP II ring and impacted allograft bone in severe acetabular defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3148–3155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2402-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Schneider R (1980) Reinforcement of the cup in total hip prosthesis (author’s transl). Unfallheilkunde 83(10):482–488PubMed

55.

Hsu C-C, Hsu C-H, Yen S-H, Wang J-W (2015) Use of the Burch-Schneider cage and structural allografts in complex acetabular deficiency: 3- to 10-year follow up. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 31(10):540–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2015.08.001 CrossRefPubMed

56.

Regis D, Sandri A, Bonetti I (2014) Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage and bulk allografts: minimum 10-year follow-up results. Biomed Res Int 2014:194076. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/194076 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Jones L, Grammatopoulos G, Singer G (2012) The Burch-Schneider cage: 9-year survival in Paprosky type 3 acetabular defects. Clinical and radiological follow-up. Hip Int 22(1):28–34. https://doi.org/10.5301/HIP.2012.9078 CrossRefPubMed

58.

Ilyas I, Alrumaih HA, Kashif S, Rabbani SA, Faqihi AH (2015) Revision of type III and type IVB acetabular defects with Burch-Schneider anti-Protrusio cages. J Arthroplast 30(2):259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.014 CrossRef

59.

van Koeveringe AJ, Ochsner PE (2002) Revision cup arthroplasty using Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. Int Orthop 26(5):291–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-002-0361-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Wachtl SW, Jung M, Jakob RP, Gautier E (2000) The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery: a mean follow-up of 12 years. J Arthroplast 15(8):959–963CrossRef

61.

Winter E, Piert M, Volkmann R, Maurer F, Eingartner C, Weise K, Weller S (2001) Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(6):862–867CrossRef

62.

Tanaka C, Shikata J, Ikenaga M, Takahashi M (2003) Acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device and hydroxyapatite granules: a 3- to 8-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 18(6):719–725CrossRef

63.

Baba T, Shitoto K (2010) Revision of total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull and KT plates. Int Orthop 34(3):341–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0789-y CrossRefPubMed

64.

Gibon E, Barut N, Courpied JP, Hamadouche M (2018) Revision total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device for Paprosky type III defects involving the inferior margin of the acetabulum. Bone Joint J 100-B(6):725–732. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B6.BJJ-2017-1472.R1 CrossRefPubMed

65.

Makita H, Kerboull M, Inaba Y, Tezuka T, Saito T, Kerboull L (2017) Revision total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device and structural allograft for severe defects of the acetabulum. J Arthroplast 32(11):3502–3509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.06.029 CrossRef

66.

Kim Y, Tanaka C, Kanoe H (2015) Long-term outcome of acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device with hydroxyapetite granule and structural autograft for AAOS type II and III acetabular defects. J Arthroplast 30(10):1810–1814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.04.034 CrossRef

67.

Hori J, Yasunaga Y, Yamasaki T, Yoshida T, Oshima S, Yamasaki K, Matsuo T, Ochi M (2012) Mid-term results of acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device. Int Orthop 36(1):23–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1248-0 CrossRefPubMed

68.

Akiyama H, Yamamoto K, Tsukanaka M, Kawanabe K, Otsuka H, So K, Goto K, Nakamura T (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device with bone allograft: minimum 4.5-year follow-up results and mechanical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(9):1194–1200. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.93b9.26598 CrossRefPubMed

69.

Okano K, Miyata N, Enomoto H, Osaki M, Shindo H (2010) Revision with impacted bone allografts and the Kerboull cross plate for massive bone defect of the acetabulum. J Arthroplast 25(4):594–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.003 CrossRef

70.

Kawanabe K, Akiyama H, Onishi E, Nakamura T (2007) Revision total hip replacement using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device with morsellised or bulk graft: results at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(1):26–31. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.89b1.18037 CrossRefPubMed

71.

Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 378:155–168CrossRef

72.

Kosashvili Y, Safir O, Backstein D, Lakstein D, Gross AE (2010) Salvage of failed acetabular cages by nonbuttressed trabecular metal cups. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(2):466–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0935-2 CrossRefPubMed

73.

Tangsataporn S, Abolghasemian M, Kuzyk PR, Backstein DJ, Safir OA, Gross AE (2013) Salvaged failed roof rings and antiprotrusion cages: surgical options and implant survival. Hip Int 23(2):166–172. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000009 CrossRefPubMed

74.

López-Torres II, Sanz-Ruíz P, Sánchez-Pérez C, Andrade-Albarracín R, Vaquero J (2018) Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study. Int Orthop 42(8):1811–1818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3801-6 CrossRefPubMed

75.

Nodzo SR, Boyle KK, Pavlesen S, Rachala S (2018) Bone morphogenic protein-2 use in revision total hip arthroplasty with acetabular defects. Int Orthop 42(4):783–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3671-3 CrossRefPubMed

76.

Amirouche F, Solitro GF, Walia A, Gonzalez M, Bobko A (2017) Segmental acetabular rim defects, bone loss, oversizing, and press fit cup in total hip arthroplasty evaluated with a probabilistic finite element analysis. Int Orthop 41(8):1527–1533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3369-y CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Acetabular reinforcement rings associated with allograft for severe acetabular defects
verfasst von: Emmanuel Gibon
Luc Kerboull
Jean-Pierre Courpied
Moussa Hamadouche
Publikationsdatum: 13.09.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4142-1

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Knie-TEP: Kein Vorteil durch antibiotikahaltigen Knochenzement

29.05.2024 Periprothetische Infektionen Nachrichten

Zur Zementierung einer Knie-TEP wird in Deutschland zu über 98% Knochenzement verwendet, der mit einem Antibiotikum beladen ist. Ob er wirklich besser ist als Zement ohne Antibiotikum, kann laut Registerdaten bezweifelt werden.

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

28.05.2024 Häusliche Gewalt Nachrichten

In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Acetabular reinforcement rings associated with allograft for severe acetabular defects

Abstract

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Knie-TEP: Kein Vorteil durch antibiotikahaltigen Knochenzement

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Surgical treatment for shepherd’s crook deformity in fibrous dysplasia: THERE IS NO BEST, ONLY BETTER

Dual-position calibration markers for total hip arthroplasty: theoretical comparison to fixed calibration and single marker method

The modified Dunn procedure provides superior short-term outcomes in the treatment of the unstable slipped capital femoral epiphysis as compared to the inadvertent closed reduction and percutaneous pinning: a comparative clinical study

Total knee arthroplasties from the origin to navigation: history, rationale, indications

Children with open tibial fractures show significantly lower infection rates than adults: clinical comparative study

Long-term outcomes of Phemister bone grafting for patients with non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Knie-TEP: Kein Vorteil durch antibiotikahaltigen Knochenzement

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie