ArticleActa orthopaedica2015
Short-term survival of the trabecular metal cup is similar to that of standard cups used in acetabular revision surgery.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conventional Titanium Acetabular Cups vs. Trabecular Titanium Acetabular Cups in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Ten-year Follow-up Clinical and Radiological Results.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026Article
- "Cup-in-Cup Technique" in the Management of Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty: Early to Midterm Results.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Article
- Does Using Highly Porous Tantalum in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Reduce the Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
- Carpal bone replacement using personalized 3D printed tantalum prosthesis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Does cup position differ between trabecular metal and titanium cups? A radiographic propensity score matched study of 300 hips.Acta orthopaedica · 2020Observational
- Uncemented or cemented revision stems? Analysis of 2,296 first-time hip revision arthroplasties performed due to aseptic loosening, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2019Article
- Survival of 11,390 Continuum cups in primary total hip arthroplasty based on data from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2019Article
- Do Trabecular Metal Acetabular Components Reduce the Risk of Rerevision After Revision THA Performed for Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Study Using the NJR Data Set.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019Observational
- Trabecular metal acetabular components in primary total hip arthroplasty.Acta orthopaedica · 2018Article
- 20 years of porous tantalum in primary and revision hip arthroplasty-time for a critical appraisal.Acta orthopaedica · 2018Article
- Do dual-mobility cups cemented into porous tantalum shells reduce the risk of dislocation after revision surgery?Acta orthopaedica · 2018Article
- CORR InsightsClinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Does the Risk of Rerevision Vary Between Porous Tantalum Cups and Other Cementless Designs After Revision Hip Arthroplasty?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Are porous tantalum cups superior to conventional reinforcement rings?Acta orthopaedica · 2017Article
- No increased risk of early revision during the implementation phase of new cup designs.Acta orthopaedica · 2016Article
- Two stage cementation and screw augmentation of large acetabular defects in low demand patients: Early results and surgical technique.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe use of trabecular metal (TM) cups in revision surgery has increased worldwide during the last decade. Since the introduction of the TM cup in Sweden in 2006, this design has gradually replaced other uncemented designs used in Sweden. According to data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) in 2012, one-third of all uncemented first-time cup revisions were performed using a TM cup. We compared the risk of reoperation and re-revision for TM cups and the 2 other most frequently used cup designs in acetabular revisions reported to the SHAR. The hypothesis was that the performance of TM cups is as good as that of established designs in the short term. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study population consisted of 2,384 patients who underwent 2,460 revisions during the period 2006 through 2012. The most commonly used cup designs were the press-fit porous-coated cup (n = 870), the trabecular metal cup (n = 805), and the cemented all-polyethylene cup (n = 785). 54% of the patients were female, and the median age at index revision was 72 (19-95) years. Reoperation was defined as a second surgical intervention, and re-revision-meaning exchange or removal of the cup-was used as endpoint. The mean follow-up time was 3.3 (0-7) years.
resultsThere were 215 reoperations, 132 of which were re-revisions. The unadjusted and adjusted risk of reoperation or re-revision was not significantly different for the TM cup and the other 2 cup designs.
interpretationOur data support continued use of TM cups in acetabular revisions. Further follow-up is necessary to determine whether trabecular metal cups can reduce the re-revision rate in the long term, compared to the less costly porous press-fit and cemented designs.
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.