ReviewInternational orthopaedics2015
The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.
Review in International orthopaedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Comparisons of in-hospital complications between total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing arthroplasty.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Gait after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: an age-matched controlled prospective study.The bone & joint journal · 2019Article
- Optimizing Acetabular Component Bone Ingrowth: The Wedge-Fit Bone Preparation Method.Advances in orthopedics · 2019Article
- A prospective comparative study of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty in younger patients-a minimum of five year follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- [Mid-term effectiveness of large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2018Article
- Hip Osteoarthritis: A Primer.The Permanente journal · 2018Review
- Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris? an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.The bone & joint journal · 2017Observational
- Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: risk factors for pseudotumours and clinical systematic evaluation.International orthopaedics · 2017Review
- The Role of Metal-on-Metal Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing: Review Article.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2017Article
- Explant analysis of the Biomet Magnum/ReCap metal-on-metal hip joint.Bone & joint research · 2017Article
- Hip Osteoarthritis: Etiopathogenesis and Implications for Management.Advances in therapy · 2016Review
- Clinical significance of corrosion of cemented femoral stems in metal-on-metal hips: a retrieval study.International orthopaedics · 2016Article
- Sequelae of large-head metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: Current status and future prospects.EFORT open reviews · 2016Review
- Long-Term Outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Independent Series with At Least 10 Years of Follow-up.JB & JS open accessArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this review was to assess the ten to 15-year outcomes of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM HR) when performed at designing and independent centres, and make recommendations for the future use of MoM HR.
methodsStudies reporting ten to 15-year outcomes for modern MoM HR devices from both designing and independent centres were reviewed. Outcomes from these studies were assessed to allow the formulation of recommendations for the future use of MoM HR.
resultsTwo MoM HR designs, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) and Conserve Plus, have outcomes reported at a minimum of ten years. The BHR was the only device with outcomes reported at a minimum of ten years by both designing (overall survival of up to 95.8 % at 15 years) and independent surgeons (overall survival of 87.1-94.5 % at ten years). Implant survival in these seven BHR studies was influenced by the pre-operative diagnosis (primary osteoarthritis had better outcomes), gender (male patients had better outcomes), and femoral component head size (larger sizes had better outcomes). In contrast to independent centres, designing surgeons reported acceptable outcomes in female patients undergoing BHR.
conclusionsThere remains a role for MoM HR in young active male patients with primary osteoarthritis, provided the surgeon has sufficient experience in the procedure, the implant has an established record, and the patient is aware of the potential risks associated with MoM bearings and HR. Very experienced HR surgeons may also consider this procedure in females provided they meet the refined inclusion criteria described (including femoral head sizes of 46 mm and above).
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.