ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2012
What are the risks accompanying the reduced wear benefit of low-clearance hip resurfacing?
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2012. 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.
- Letter to the Editor: Five Hundred Fifty-five Retrieved Metal-on-metal Hip Replacements of a Single Design Show a Wide Range of Wear, Surface Features, and Histopathologic Reactions.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018Article
- Risk factors for failure of the 36 mm metal-on-metal Pinnacle total hip arthroplasty system: a retrospective single-centre cohort study.The bone & joint journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClearance is an important determinant of metal-metal bearing function. Tribologic theory and laboratory evidence suggest low clearance (LC) reduces wear but with a potential to increase friction and clinical reports show LC resurfacings have high implant failure rates. Thus, the role of LC is unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: is in vivo wear as reflected by cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) levels reduced in LC bearings, and if so, is this benefit offset by increased friction as assessed by implant-bone interface changes?
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 26 patients with LC resurfacings. We assessed Co and Cr levels in blood and urine, hip function, and radiographic adverse features. These data were compared with those from 26 patients with a similar resurfacing but with conventional clearance (CC) from a previous study. Minimum followup was 4.0 years (mean, 4.1 years; range, 4.0-4.7 years).
resultsCo and Cr ion comparisons showed three phases: in the first 2 months, there was no difference between the cohorts; at 2 to 24 months, the CC group showed higher levels; and subsequently, levels in the two groups converged. A mean Oxford hip score of 13 and step activity of 1.9 million cycles per year in the LC group were similar to those of the CC group. Cup radiolucencies were seen in three patients in the LC group and none in the CC group.
conclusionsLower Co and Cr levels suggest lower wear in the LC resurfacings in the intermediate term, but the presence of radiolucencies raises the concern that higher bearing friction is affecting implant fixation. A larger clearance than the theoretically predicted ideal may be required to allow for minor manufacturing imperfections, component deformation, and progressive changes in the in vivo lubricant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.