Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Several reports document high failure rates of metal-backed patellar components, but few report the outcome of revising these components to all-polyethylene, cemented implants. At a mean 87.2-month follow-up, we describe a series of 36 patients (40 knees) who underwent isolated metal-backed patellar revision to a cemented, all-polyethylene patellar component. After the patellar revision, 5 patients (6 knees) underwent additional surgery, but no patellar components required revision. The additional surgeries were performed at an average of 77.6 months after patellar revision and included 3 tibial insert exchanges for polyethylene wear, 2 revisions of femoral and tibial components for osteolysis, and 1 realignment procedure for recurrent subluxation of the patella. We conclude that revision of a failed metal-backed patellar component to a cemented, all-polyethylene patella is a durable, successful procedure.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2005.01.020 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!