ReviewDer Orthopade2008
[Biomechanical aspects of the implant fixation and kinematics of hip resurfacing systems].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards the First Generation of Biomimetic Fixation for Resurfacing Arthroplasty Endoprostheses.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- [Approach to painful hip resurfacing].Der Orthopade · 2011Article
- [Durom™ hip resurfacing. Short- to midterm clinical and radiological outcome].Der Orthopade · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hip resurfacing is undergoing a resurgence in orthopaedic surgery with an increasing number of implantations. The objective of this article is to present the biomechanical basics of implant anchorage as well as the kinematics of hip resurfacing implants.Today, fixation of the femoral component onto the prepared femoral head is mainly done using bone cement. Depending on the implant design, the bone structures beneath the femoral component can be exposed to stress shielding, followed by degradation of the bone density and subsequent initiation of implant loosening. However, the trabecular bone has the ability to adapt itself to the fixation peg, to additional cement pegs, and to the elastic properties of the femoral component as well. The acetabular component is mainly inserted into the bone stock without using cement. Provided that large prosthetic heads will be applied, thin-walled acetabular cups are crucial for bone-saving preparation of the acetabular bone stock. Nearly all hip resurfacing systems are currently based on metal-on-metal wear-bearing couples. The acetabular components are mainly designed as monoblock implants, which can make subsequent revision difficult. Kinematic analyses show a significantly lower range of motion of hip resurfacing implants compared with modern standard (stemmed) total hip replacement systems. This difference originates from the small ratio of the resurfaced femoral head diameter and the relatively thick neck of the femur. Impingement of the femur neck onto the rim of the acetabular component can result in subluxation, deformation of the bearing surfaces, femoral neck fracture, and impairment of the bony anchorage of the hip resurfacing implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.