SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2012
Hip resurfacing: a systematic review of literature.
Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hip resurfacing: case closed? A bibliometric analysis of the past 10 years.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- First Biomimetic Fixation for Resurfacing Arthroplasty: Investigation in Swine of a Prototype Partial Knee Endoprosthesis.BioMed research international · 2019Article
- Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head-a current review.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2015Article
- Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with total hip arthroplasty: two to five year outcomes in men younger than sixty five years.International orthopaedics · 2014Article
- Outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing at ten years: role of routine whole blood metal ion measurements in screening for pseudotumours.International orthopaedics · 2014Article
- Correlation between groin pain and cup design of hip-resurfacing implants: a prospective study.International orthopaedics · 2014Article
- Radiological validation of a fluoroscopic guided technique for femoral implant positioning during hip resurfacing.International orthopaedics · 2013Article
- Preliminary results of implantation in animal model and osteoblast culture evaluation of prototypes of biomimetic multispiked connecting scaffold for noncemented stemless resurfacing hip arthroplasty endoprostheses.BioMed research international · 2013Article
- Survivorship of Cemented Versus Cementless Metal on Metal Hip Resurfacing: A Match-Cohort Analysis at Minimum 5 Years.JB & JS open accessArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to take stock of hip resurfacing according to the principle of "evidence based medicine". Our main objective was to compare the rate of revision of resurfacing implants with survival limits set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).
methodsA systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE) literature research databases up to July 2012 as recommended by the PRISMA statement. Data extraction focused on functional outcomes, complications and survival rates. The survival rates of implants were analysed according to the mean of the series in comparison to the NICE criteria.
resultsFifty-three studies were identified and included 26,456 cases with an average of 499.17 ± 856.7 (range, 38-5000) cases per study. The median survival was 95.57 % ± 3.7 % (range, 84-100). The percentage of studies which satisfied the criteria set by NICE was 69.8 %. In terms of cumulative revision rates pondered by the number of implants, BHR®, Conserve Plus® and Cormet® showed the best results. The mean postoperative score was 91.2 ± 7.72 (range, 68.3-98.6). There was no statistically significant difference between implants in terms of functional outcomes.
conclusionOn the basis of the current evidence base, this review of the literature emphasises the importance of certain parameters that can improve the results of resurfacing. The type of implant seems to play an important role as does patient selection.
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.