ArticleInternational orthopaedics2014
Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with total hip arthroplasty: two to five year outcomes in men younger than sixty five years.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: risk factors for pseudotumours and clinical systematic evaluation.International orthopaedics · 2017Review
- Effect of carbon ion implantation on the tribology of metal-on-metal bearings for artificial joints.International journal of nanomedicine · 2017Article
- Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2016Article
- High Re-Operation Rates Using Conserve Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Articulations.The open orthopaedics journal · 2016Article
- Influence of implant design on blood metal ion concentrations in metal-on-metal total hip replacement patients.International orthopaedics · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere are limited studies examining the long-term survivorship for the current generation of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MOMHR) implants in the young male population, and fewer studies have been published on prospectively collected outcomes data for total hip resurfacing in the USA. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of MOMHR in comparison with total hip arthroplasty (THA) using validated outcome measures, survivorship and complication rates.
methodsThe study prospectively followed 136 implants in 123 male patients <65 years, all with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis and similar comorbidities as determined by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. A single-surgeon cohort of 89 MOMHRs was compared with a similar cohort of 47 THAs. Outcomes were prospectively assessed with the Short-Form Health Survey of 12 questions (SF-12) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) questionnaires pre- and postoperatively at yearly intervals. Minimum follow-up was two years, and average follow-up was 3.9 years.
resultsDiagnosis, body mass index (BMI), American Association of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and pre-operative pain and function scores were not significantly different between groups. There was no difference in SF-12 scores postoperatively. At one and two years postoperatively, the MOMHR group had better WOMAC scores than the THA group, but no difference was seen at three to five years postoperatively. There were no revisions in either group over the study period.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated good results for hip resurfacing in men <65 years five years postoperatively and similar function to THA patients.
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.