ArticleOrthopedic reviews2013
Prospective study comparing functional outcomes and revision rates between hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty: preliminary results for 2 years.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a need of independent prospective studies about modern generation of hip resurfacing implants. The aim of this propective observational study was to compare the functional outcomes and revision rates with hip resurfacing arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty and to present the preliminary results at 2 years. Patients included were recruited prospectively in the Partial Pelvic Replacement Hip Project by a single surgeon between January 2007 and January 2010. Patients were assessed with the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Postel-Merle d'Aubigné (MDA) score and Devane Score. The end point of the study was reoperation for any cause related to the prosthesis. At a mean follow up of 38.6 months there were a total of 142 patients with hip resurfacing (group 1) [100 Durom(®) (Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA) and 42 Birmingham Hip Resurfacing(®) (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA)] and 278 patients with total hip arthroplasty (group 2). The results showed significantly greater gain of HHS, MDA and Devane score with hip resurfacing procedures. However, considering all the complications, the rate was significantly higher in group 16.4% vs 1.79% in group 2 (P<0.0001). In group 1 we observed 6 complications only concerned males with Durom(®) implants. The follow up of this cohort is still on going and may deliver more information on the evolution of these results in time.
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.