Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26373851›Full record

Observational studyClinical orthopaedics and related research2015

Does a titanium-coated polyethylene press-fit cup give reliable midterm results?

Nikki Hooper, Harry Sargeant, Chris Frampton, Gary Hooper

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nikki HooperDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Otago, Lower Ground Floor, Parkside, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand.
Harry SargeantDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Otago, Lower Ground Floor, Parkside, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand.
Chris FramptonDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Gary HooperDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Otago, Lower Ground Floor, Parkside, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand. gary.hooper@otago.ac.nz.
University of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUncemented acetabular components have demonstrated low revision rates and high patient satisfaction but with concerns regarding increased costs compared with monoblock cups. Some newer lower-cost uncemented monoblock options have become available in the last decade, but limited data are available on their performance. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does an uncemented, titanium-backed all-polyethylene acetabular cup provide reliable fixation? (2) What is the frequency and what are the causes for revision with this cup?

methodsBetween 2004 and 2008, we elected to use an uncemented, titanium-backed all-polyethylene acetabular cup in older patients with limited physical demands. We performed 615 hip replacements in 550 patients with greater than 5 years of clinical and radiographic followup. When patients who were dead (80 hips in 75 patients), lost to followup (98 hips in 93 patients), or revised (three hips in three patients) were excluded, there were 434 hips in 379 patients for comparison of the postoperative and 5-year radiographs. Two observers not involved in the index surgical procedures (NH, HS) assessed radiographs for signs of migration or loosening. Some degree of early movement sometimes is seen before cup stabilization; however, to be conservative, we defined cups with greater than 3° of change of position (even if they subsequently stabilized) as potentially at risk and report them separately. Revision surgery, time from the index procedure, and the reason for revision were recorded from the New Zealand Joint Registry.

resultsBy 5 years there was a median change in inclination of 2° (range, 0°-13°; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-2.4; p < 0.001) and 2° of anteversion (range, 0°-11°; 95% CI, 2.0-2.4; p < 0.001). Although at last followup all cups appeared to have stabilized with no radiolucent lines or medial migration, 22% of the cups (94 of 434) had moved more than 3° and so were deemed to be potentially at risk. There were 11 revision procedures (of 429 hips; 2.5%) of which six were for recurrent dislocation, four for femoral fracture, and one for femoral loosening to give an overall all-cause revision rate for all components of 0.25 per 100 component years (95% CI, 0.13-0.43). No revisions were performed for acetabular loosening.

conclusionsThe short- to medium-term results of this all-polyethylene monoblock cup demonstrated a low frequency of revision. However, 94 cups were identified as potentially at risk based on movement of > 3° before apparent stabilization. Although those patients seem to be doing well enough now, the current duration of followup may not be sufficient to know that these cups will be durable, because other ongrowth designs have demonstrated a high frequency of late failure after apparent early success. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Coated Materials, BiocompatibleHip ProsthesisPolyethyleneTitaniumAcetabulumAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemaleHip JointHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew ZealandPostoperative ComplicationsCoated Materials, BiocompatiblePolyethyleneTitanium

Identifiers

PMID26373851
PMCPMC4626495
OpenAlexW1671569569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.