ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2017
What should I expect from my recalled Adept Hip Resurfacing?
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mid-term clinical and radiographic outcome of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing through an anterolateral approach.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2023Article
- Living with a recalled implant: a qualitative study of patients' experiences with ASR hip resurfacing arthroplasty.Patient safety in surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
"My Hip Resurfacing (HR) has been recalled. What will happen to me?" This is the question of every patient who underwent an implant recall, a highly stressful event for both patients and physicians. Triggered by a 11.64% failure rate at 7 years, a recall process started for Adept HR with head diameter less than 48 mm. We report our experience in the recall process of 40 patients with the above-mentioned components. One patient underwent revision surgery due to an adverse reaction to metal debris at 5-year follow-up. None of the patients were scheduled for revision, with an estimated survival rate of 97.6% at 7 years. Implants were well positioned with an average acetabular inclination angle of 37°. Cobalt and chromium blood levels were below the safety threshold of clinical relevance. Functional scores were excellent. In the case of a well-positioned device with normal ion levels, a good performance of the implant is generally observed. Even if we experienced a very low revision rate, this may certainly get worse over time since not all possible failures are predictable, thus requiring a careful periodic follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28452042What 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.