ArticleInternational orthopaedics2012
Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review on outcomes of acetabular revisions with highly-porous metals.International orthopaedics · 2014Pooled it
- Review
- Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty provides excellent long-term survivorship and function in patients with a good-sized femoral head : results of a single, non-designer surgeon's cohort.Bone & joint open · 2022Article
- Computational modelling of hip resurfacing arthroplasty investigating the effect of femoral version on hip biomechanics.PloS one · 2021Article
- The incidence of implant fractures after knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2016Review
- Survivorship and clinical outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum ten years' follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2016Article
- Outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing at ten years: role of routine whole blood metal ion measurements in screening for pseudotumours.International orthopaedics · 2014Article
- Survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system in patients aged 65 and older at up to ten years of follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2014Article
- Can patients return to high-impact physical activities after hip resurfacing? A prospective study.International orthopaedics · 2013Article
- Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers.International orthopaedics · 2012Article
- [Revision rates in journal publications on joint prostheses with noticeably high failure rates in register data sets].Der Orthopade · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHip resurfacing arthroplasty has gained popularity for treating young and active patients who have arthritis. There are two major data sources for assessing outcome and revision rate after total joint arthroplasty: sample-based clinical trials and national arthroplasty registers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty in terms of revision rate as reported in clinical studies and recorded by national arthroplasty registers.
methodsA comprehensive literature research was performed from English-language, peer-reviewed journals and annual reports from national joint arthroplasty registers worldwide. Only publications from MEDLINE-listed journals were included. The revision rate was used as the primary outcome parameter. In order to allow for direct comparison of different data sets, calculation was based on revisions per 100 observed component years. For statistical analysis, confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
resultsA total of 18,708 implants, equivalent to 106,565 observed component years, were analysed in the follow-up studies. The register reports contained 9,806 primary cases corresponding to 44,294 observed component years. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in revisions per 100 observed component years between the development team (0.27; CI: 0.14-0.40) and register data (0.74; CI: 0.72-0.76).
conclusionThe BHR arthroplasty device shows good results in terms of revision rate in register data as well as in clinical studies. However, the excellent results reported by the development team are not reproducible by other surgeons. Based on the results of our study, we believe that comprehensive national arthroplasty registers are the most suitable tool for assessing hip arthroplasty revision rate.
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.