ArticleBone & joint research2017
Explant analysis of the Biomet Magnum/ReCap metal-on-metal hip joint.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigation of the In Vivo Performance of Metal-on-Metal Motec Total Wrist Arthroplasty-An Explant Analysis.Journal of wrist surgery · 2025Article
- Investigation of the short-term in vivo performance of metal-on-carbon fibre reinforced poly ether ether ketone Motec wrists: an explant analysis.The Journal of hand surgery, European volume · 2025Article
- Blood Metal Ion Levels After Hip Resurfacing: A Comparison of 2 Different Implants.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe high revision rates of the DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) and the DePuy ASR XL (the total hip arthroplasty (THA) version) have led to questions over the viability of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip joints. Some designs of MoM hip joint do, however, have reasonable mid-term performance when implanted in appropriate patients. Investigations into the reasons for implant failure are important to offer help with the choice of implants and direction for future implant designs. One way to assess the performance of explanted hip prostheses is to measure the wear (in terms of material loss) on the joint surfaces.
methodsIn this study, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the wear on five failed cementless Biomet Magnum/ReCap/ Taperloc large head MoM THAs, along with one Biomet ReCap resurfacing joint. Surface roughness measurements were also taken. The reason for revision of these implants was pain and/or adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) and/or elevated blood metal ion levels.
resultsThe mean wear rate of the articulating surfaces of the heads and acetabular components of all six joints tested was found to be 6.1 mm
conclusionAlthough the taper wear was relatively low, the wear from the articulating surfaces was sufficient to provide concern and was potentially large enough to have been the cause of failure of these joints. The authors believe that patients implanted with the ReCap system, whether the resurfacing prosthesis or the THA, should be closely monitored.
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.