ArticleThe Journal of arthroplasty2014
A comparison of surgical approaches for primary hip arthroplasty: a cohort study of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and early revision using linked national databases.
Article in The Journal of arthroplasty, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported outcome after total hip arthroplasty: comparison between lateral and posterior approach.Acta orthopaedica · 2017Trial
- Early revision in total joint arthroplasty surgery - a narrative review.Orthopedic reviews · 2025Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in High-Risk Medical Device Registries: A Scoping Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
- Role of femoral head material on readmission and mortality rates following elective primary total hip arthroplasty in Medicare patients.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- The impact of a digital joint school educational programme on post-operative outcomes following lower limb arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative cohort study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Posterior versus lateral surgical approach: functionality and quality of life after total hip arthroplasty in a matched cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Histological and ultrastructural degenerative findings in the gluteus medius tendon after hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- No Threshold Exists for Recommending Revision Surgery in Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients With Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 346 Revisions.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2019Article
- Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures.EFORT open reviews · 2019Review
- Article
- A comparison of the omega and posterior approaches on patient reported function and radiological outcomes following total hip replacement.Journal of orthopaedics · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The posterior and lateral approaches to primary hip arthroplasty were compared using national data from England and Wales. Specific component combinations of the most commonly used cemented and cementless implant brands were analysed separately. There was no significant difference between the approaches for all-cause revision risk (cemented: P = 0.726, cementless: P = 0.295) and revision for dislocation (P = 0.176, P = 0.695) at 12 months following 37,593 procedures, after adjusting for patient and surgical variables. Analysis of 3881 linked episodes found the posterior approach was associated with significantly higher improvement in function (Oxford Hip Score: 20.8 versus 18.9, P < 0.001 (cemented procedures); 21.7 versus 20.2, P = 0.008 (cementless), EQ5D index: 0.416 versus 0.383, P = 0.003; 0.431 versus 0.384, P = 0.003). The posterior approach may offer a functional benefit (albeit small clinically), without increased revision risk.
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.