ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2015
Resurfacing head size and femoral fracture: Are registry conclusions on head size justified?
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundJoint registries report that peri-prosthetic fractures are the most common reason for early revision of a hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) and are twice as likely with small implant sizes. However, a national survey found peri-prosthetic fracture to be strongly associated with surgical accuracy. We therefore asked whether the force required to induce a peri-prosthetic fracture: (1) was significantly lower when using smaller implants and (2) correlated to the size of implant used, when surgery was performed accurately.
methodsTo ensure an adequate power, we calculated our sample size from pilot data. Forty-four femurs were tested in two experiments. The first experiment tested femurs with either a small (48 mm) or a large (54 mm) HRA implant. The second involved testing femurs with a range of implant sizes. A rapid prototyped femur-specific guide ensured accurate implantation. Specimens were then vertically loaded in a servo-hydraulic testing machine till fracture. Displacement (mm) and force (N) required for fracture were recorded.
resultsA median force of 1081 N was required to fracture specimens implanted with small 48-mm heads, while 1134 N was required when a 54-mm head was used (U = 77, z = -0.054, p = 0.957). Implant head size and force required to fracture were not related, r = 0.12, p = 0.63.
conclusionsThe force required to induce a resurfacing peri-prosthetic fracture was not related to the size of the implant. The increased failure rate seen in all registries is unlikely to be directly the result of this single variable. Correctly performed resurfacing arthroplasty is highly resistant to fracture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26407614What 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.