The second was a control revision group, which included patients undergoing revision surgery for isolated polyethylene wear with liner exchange, dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, and mechanical failure of an implant.
The case described was approved by an internal revision group at the Direction of Clinical Department.
It is especially striking that the improvement in external rotation in the CTA group was markedly higher (with a difference of 61) than in the fracture sequelae group (with a difference of 23) and the revision group (with a difference of 23).
Since fusion is defined as grade I, primary group had a fusion rate of 80% (n = 20) and revision group had a fusion rate of 76.2% (n = 16), and there were no significant differences between groups (P = 1.00; Table 1).
It is noteworthy that once again our best results were attained in the CTA group, whereas the fracture sequelae group and the prosthesis revision group showed a lower increase in strength and a lower degree of pain relief.
However, only in our Case 39 (28-year-old female) in the revision group had a high activity level, i.e., such a tendency was not apparent in our patients.
Although revision surgery in general suggests a higher re-revison rate, in this "revision" group, none of the metal-backed acetabular components had to be revised and only 6 liner revisions had to be performed.
The small number of cases (n = 12) in the femoral-component revision group may have resulted in a failure to observe a true difference (type II error) when statistical analysis was applied.
There were three patients in the aseptic loosening group and four patients in the control revision group who had an isolated elevated preoperative CRP.
The minimum and maximum blood losses were 155 and 600 g (mean: 369 g), respectively (Table 4).> Case 33 in the revision group was diagnosed with a grade 3 GCT of the bone, and underwent surgery alone.
However, the small numbers in the revision group may have resulted in a type II error.
