ArticleActa orthopaedica2018
Lessons learnt from early failure of a patient trial with a polymer-on-polymer resurfacing hip arthroplasty.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - Hip resurfacing (HR) is a treatment option promoted for hip arthritis in young and active patients. However, adverse reactions to metal are a concern and the search for non-metallic bearing options proceeds. We present the first clinical study performed in patients using a newly developed hydrophilic polymer-on-polymer hip resurfacing device. Patients and methods - After performing extensive hip simulator tests, biocompatibility testing and animal tests (ISO 14242-1,3; 10993-3,4,5,10,11), approval was obtained from the IRB committee to enroll 15 patients in the first clinical study in humans using this experimental polymer-on-polymer hip resurfacing device. All surgeries were done by 2 experienced hip resurfacing surgeons. Clinical scores and standard radiographs as well as routine MRIs were obtained at regular intervals. Results - The surgical technique proved feasible with successful implantation of the new device using PMMA cement fixation on both sides without complications. Postoperative imaging revealed a well-positioned and well-fixed polymer resurfacing hip arthroplasty in all 4 initial cases. All 4 patients were free of pain and had good function for the first 2 months. However, in all 4 cases early cup loosening occurred between 8 and 11 weeks after surgery, necessitating immediate closure of the study. All 4 patients had a reoperation and were revised to a conventional THA. Retrieval analyses confirmed early cup loosening at the implant-cement interface in all 4 cases. The femoral components remained well attached to the cement. The periprosthetic tissues showed only small amounts of polymeric wear debris and there was only a very mild inflammatory reaction to this. Interpretation - Early cup loosening mandated a premature arrest of this study. After additional laboratory testing this failure mode was found to be the result of a small, yet measurable contraction in the cup size after exposing these implants to biological fluid divalent ion fluctuations in vivo. Currently used preclinical tests had failed to detect this failure mechanism. Modification of the polymer is essential to overcome these problems and before the potential of a polymer-on-polymer resurfacing arthroplasty may be further evaluated in patients.
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.