Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22083422›Full record

ArticleDer Orthopade2011

[Which hip articulation bearing for which patient? : Tribology of the future].

M M Morlock, N Bishop, C Kaddick

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Orthopade, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M M MorlockInstitut für Biomechanik, TU Hamburg-Harburg, Denickestrasse, 21073, Hamburg, Deutschland. morlock@tuhh.de
N Bishop
C Kaddick

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Replacement of the hip joint has become an exceptionally successful procedure since the inauguration of the low friction principle by Charnley. Aseptic osteolysis and joint dislocation have been addressed by the development of wear-optimized materials and the introduction of larger heads. As an increase in head diameter against polyethylene causes wear increase, larger hard-on-hard bearings were introduced, which exhibit reduced wear and reduced dislocation risk with increasing head diameter. These findings were derived from standard simulator testing, not sufficiently considering the risk of fluid film breakdown under adverse conditions, which can cause a dramatic increase in wear and friction proportional to the head diameter. Such adverse conditions can occur clinically in patients due to several factors and have caused the presently observed unexpected problems with these new designs. Standardized preclinical testing has to be viewed as a minimum requirement but certainly not as a guarantee for the clinical success of new materials and designs even if the testing is adapted to the current patient requirements, which is presently not the case. The future of tribology lies in the prevention of adverse conditions in patients, the improvement and optimized use of proven existing materials and not in the use of new materials.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipEquipment Failure AnalysisFrictionGermanyHip ProsthesisHumansLubricationProsthesis Design

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.