ArticleActa orthopaedica2011
Results of 3,668 primary total hip replacements for primary osteoarthritis in patients under the age of 55 years.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of literature of cemented femoral components: what is the durability at minimum 20 years followup?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2015Pooled it
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of an uncemented metaphyseal short stem at minimum 10 years of follow-up: a prospective observational study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Observational
- A Scoping Review of Total Hip Arthroplasty Survival and Reoperation Rates in Patients of 55 Years or Younger: Health Services Implications for Revision Surgeries.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- A Comparison of Risks and Benefits Regarding Hip Arthroplasty Fixation.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2021Article
- Correction of complex three-dimensional deformities at the proximal femur using indirect reduction with angle blade plate and patient-specific instruments: a technical note.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Observational
- What Is the Long-term (27- to 32-year) Survivorship of an Uncemented Tapered Titanium Femoral Component and Survival in Patients Younger Than 50 Years?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Greater increase in femoral offset with use of collum femoris-preserving stem than Tri-Lock stem in primary total hip arthroplasty.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- [Arthroplasty in patients with osteoporosis].Der Unfallchirurg · 2019Review
- Patient-reported outcomes in hip resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a register-based matched cohort study of 726 patients.Acta orthopaedica · 2019Article
- Comparative Mid-term Follow-up Study of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with Metal-on-metal and Metal-on-polyethylene Bearings.Orthopaedic surgery · 2018Article
- A prospective comparative study of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty in younger patients-a minimum of five year follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- Acetabular Subchondral Bone Decortication and Its Role in the Outcome of Cemented Total Hip Replacement in Young Patients.Hip & pelvis · 2018Article
- Early aseptic loosening of the Tritanium primary acetabular component with screw fixation.Arthroplasty today · 2018Article
- Bearing surfaces in primary total hip arthroplasty.EFORT open reviews · 2018Article
- Midterm analysis of the seleXys cup with ceramic inlay.Arthroplasty today · 2017Article
- Total hip replacement: A meta-analysis to evaluate survival of cemented, cementless and hybrid implants.World journal of orthopedics · 2017Article
- Adverse reactions to metal debris occur with all types of hip replacement not just metal-on-metal hips: a retrospective observational study of 3340 revisions for adverse reactions to metal debris from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Observational
- Still no single gold standard for using cementless femoral stems routinely in total hip arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2016Article
- The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.International orthopaedics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeIn a previous study based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, the survival of cementless stems was better than that of cemented stems in younger patients. However, the survival of cementless cups was poor due to osteolysis. In the present study, we analyzed population-based survival rates of the cemented and cementless total hip replacements in patients under the age of 55 years with primary osteoarthritis in Finland. PATIENTS AND
methods3,668 implants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The previous data included years 1980-2001, whereas the current study includes years 1987-2006. The implants were classified in 3 groups: (1) implants with a cementless, straight, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem and a porous-coated press-fit cup (cementless group 1); (2) implants with a cementless, anatomic, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem, with or without hydroxyapatite, and a porous-coated press-fit cup with or without hydroxyapatite (cementless group 2); and (3) a cemented stem combined with a cemented all-polyethylene cup (the cemented group). Analyses were performed separately for 2 time periods: those operated 1987-1996 and those operated 1997-2006.
resultsThe 15-year survival for any reason of cementless total hip replacement (THR) group 1 operated on 1987-1996 (62%; 95% CI: 57-67) and cementless group 2 (58%; CI: 52-66) operated on during the same time period was worse than that of cemented THRs (71%; CI: 62-80), although the difference was not statistically significant. The revision risk for aseptic loosening of cementless stem group 1 operated on 1987-1996 (0.49; CI: 0.32-0.74) was lower than that for aseptic loosening of cemented stems (p = 0.001).
interpretationExcessive wear of the polyethylene liner resulted in numerous revisions of modular cementless cups. The outcomes of total hip arthroplasty appear to have been relatively unsatisfactory for younger patients in Finland.
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.