ArticleDer Orthopade2010
[Durom™ hip resurfacing. Short- to midterm clinical and radiological outcome].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the long-term cause of failure and survivorship of four hundred and twenty seven metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: resurfacing versus large head total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- High revision rate at 5 years after hip resurfacing with the Durom implant.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2011Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModern hip resurfacing as an alternative for stemmed total hip replacement therapy is associated with a specific risk profile. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the short- to midterm clinical and radiological outcome after introduction of the Durom™ Hip Resurfacing prosthesis in a consecutive series. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 132 hips (119 patients, 34 female, mean age 48±8,3 years) were evaluated functionally (Harris Hip Score, UCLA and Tegner activity scores) and radiologically with a mean follow-up period of 29 (6-60) months. Furthermore, preoperative ASA- and Charnley-scores, perioperative parameters as well as complications were registered.
resultsDuring the observation period the Harris Hip Score improved by a mean of 36.6 points to 92.5±11.6 points (p<0.01). ULCA and Tegner scores improved by a mean of 3.1 and 1.6 to 7.1 and 4.0 points, respectively. Three patients (2.3%) needed revision surgery due to periprosthetic fracture, prosthesis infection, and aseptic loosening of the femoral component. In four patients (3.1%) an initial migration of the acetabular component not requiring surgical revision was observed radiologically.
conclusionThe Durom™ Hip Resurfacing prosthesis demonstrated a low revision rate and a good mid-term functional and radiological outcome. Due to acetabular cup migrations in a small number of patients we now use an implant with modified surface design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20737133What 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.