ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2013
The outcomes of hip resurfacing compared to standard primary total hip arthroplasty in Men.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Targeting of Periprosthetic Muscles for the Ultrasonographic Screening of Hip Abnormalities in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Midterm results of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: a single-surgeon series.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Hip Resurfacing vs Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Younger than 35 Years: A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- A Comparative Cohort Study With a 20-Year Age Gap: Hip Resurfacing in Patients Aged ≤35 Years and Patients Aged ≥55 Years.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- Is the Survivorship of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Better Than Selected Conventional Hip Arthroplasties in Men Younger Than 65 Years of Age? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Hard Chrome-Coated and Fullerene-Doped Metal Surfaces in Orthopedic Bearings.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
- Advanced metal artifact reduction MRI of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants: compressed sensing acceleration enables the time-neutral use of SEMAC.Skeletal radiology · 2016Article
- Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients.Advances in orthopedics · 2015Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of hip resurfacing patients and compare them to standard primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed during the same period of time.
methodsOne hundred and fourteen consecutive men who had a mean age of 50 years (range, 20 to 85 years) and who had undergone 120 hip resurfacing arthroplasties between 2007 and 2009 were compared to 117 consecutive men (120 hips) who had undergone a standard total hip arthroplasty during the same time period. The mean follow-up was 42 months (range, 24 to 55 months) for both groups. Outcomes evaluated included implant survivorship, hip scores, activity levels, and complication rates.
resultsIn the resurfacing hip arthroplasty cohort, implant survivorship was 98% with two patients requiring a revision surgery one for femoral neck fracture and another for femoral head loosening. In comparison, implant survivorship was 99% in the standard total hip arthroplasty cohort, with 1 revision due to peri-prosthetic fracture which was successfully treated with a femoral component revision. In the resurfacing and standard hip arthroplasty cohorts, the mean post-operative Harris hip scores had improved to 96 and 94 points, respectively and were statistically similar. The resurfacing cohort had achieved a significantly higher mean post-operative University of California Activity Score (6.7 versus 5 points). There were no differences in the complication rates between the two cohorts.
conclusionWhen patients meet the appropriate selection criteria in the hands of experienced and high-volume arthroplasty surgeons, hip resurfacing provides excellent results at short- to mid-term follow-up.
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.