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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
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
Background: Porous tantalum is reportedly a good substitute for structural bone graft in several applications. So far, its use has not been reported in tibial tuberosity anteriorization (TTA) for treatment of isolated degenerative chondral lesions of the patellofemoral joint.
Questions/purposes: We asked whether the use of this material would produce similar standardized functional scores, pain (VAS), fusion rates, complications, and patient satisfaction to those for bone graft.
Patients And Methods: We performed a randomized, controlled trial in 101 patients (108 knees) scheduled for TTA comparing a porous tantalum implant (57 knees) with an autologous local tibial bone graft (51 knees). The minimum followup was 5 years (mean, 6.2 years; range, 5-8 years).
Results: At the last followup, clinical scores, fusion rates, and maintenance of the anteriorization either were better or similar for the TTA using the tantalum implant depending on the respective parameter. The operative technique was easier and shorter with the tantalum device. Complication and failure rates were greater using bone graft. Patient satisfaction was greater using the tantalum implant.
Conclusions: Porous tantalum provided a reasonable alternative to bone graft in TTA.
Level Of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853652 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1115-0 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!