ArticleActa orthopaedica2015
Have cementless and resurfacing components improved the medium-term results of hip replacement for patients under 60 years of age?
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: A systematic review with narrative synthesis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Is there a place for routine use of cemented acetabular fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis? Equivalence demonstrated in an analysis of 96,574 cases from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in High-Risk Medical Device Registries: A Scoping Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
- Implant survival of cemented arthroplasty following failed fixation of proximal femoral fractures in patients aged 30-60 years: a retrospective study with a median follow-up of 10 years.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and re-evaluation.SICOT-J · 2019Article
- The Cox model is better than the Fine and Gray model when estimating relative revision risks from arthroplasty register data.Acta orthopaedica · 2017Article
- Poor 10-year survivorship of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.Acta orthopaedica · 2016Article
- Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients.Advances in orthopedics · 2015Article
- Article
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty after eight years - a retrospective study.Revista brasileira de ortopediaArticle
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe optimal hip replacement for young patients remains unknown. We compared patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), revision risk, and implant costs over a range of hip replacements.
methodsWe included hip replacements for osteoarthritis in patients under 60 years of age performed between 2003 and 2010 using the commonest brand of cemented, cementless, hybrid, or resurfacing prosthesis (11,622 women and 13,087 men). The reference implant comprised a cemented stem with a conventional polyethylene cemented cup and a standard-sized head (28- or 32-mm). Differences in implant survival were assessed using competing-risks models, adjusted for known prognostic influences. Analysis of covariance was used to assess improvement in PROMs (Oxford hip score (OHS) and EQ5D index) in 2014 linked procedures.
resultsIn males, PROMs and implant survival were similar across all types of implants. In females, revision was statistically significantly higher in hard-bearing and/or small-stem cementless implants (hazard ratio (HR) = 4) and resurfacings (small head sizes (< 48 mm): HR = 6; large head sizes (≥ 48 mm): HR = 5) when compared to the reference cemented implant. In component combinations with equivalent survival, women reported significantly greater improvements in OHS with hybrid implants (22, p = 0.006) and cementless implants (21, p = 0.03) (reference, 18), but similar EQ5D index. For men and women, National Health Service (NHS) costs were lowest with the reference implant and highest with a hard-bearing cementless replacement.
interpretationIn young women, hybrids offer a balance of good early functional improvement and low revision risk. Fully cementless and resurfacing components are more costly and do not provide any additional benefit for younger 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.