ArticleInternational orthopaedics2018
A prospective comparative study of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty in younger patients-a minimum of five year follow-up.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Choice of Hip Arthroplasty: HRA or THA? Revealed by Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative Outcomes of Resurfacing vs Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in orthopedics · 2026Review
- Comparisons of in-hospital complications between total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing arthroplasty.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Resurfacing Hip Arthroplasty Is a Safe and Effective Alternative to Total Hip Arthroplasty in Young Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The early- to medium-term results of a hemispherical, porous coated acetabular shell with multiple different bearing combinations are excellent with the exception of metal-on-metal.International orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Design of custom-made navigational template of femoral head and pilot research in total hip resurfacing arthroplasty.BMC surgery · 2020Article
- The influence of bearing surfaces on periprosthetic hip infections: analysis of thirty nine thousand, two hundred and six cementless total hip arthroplasties.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Pleomorphic clinical spectrum of metallosis in total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Total hip arthroplasty with monobloc press-fit acetabular components and large-diameter bearings for atypical acetabula is safe: a consecutive case series of 125 hips with mean follow-up of 9 years.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
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
introductionBoth hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) and large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (LDH MoM THA) are generally used for young and active patients. A number of comparative studies of HRA and total hip arthroplasty have been published in the literature. However, studies that have compared HRA with LDH MoM THA are rare. The purpose of this study is to compare the mid-term results of HRA with those of LDH MoM THA in young patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsBetween 2007 and 2011, 68 patients were enrolled in the study and randomized into two groups: HRA group (28 hips) and LDH MoM THA group (40 hips). Peri-operative data including blood loss, surgery duration, size of the implant, and post-operative complications were recorded. All patients were assessed clinically and radiologically at six weeks; one, three and five years; and at the time of final review. Functional outcome were assessed using Harris hip (HHS), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and Oxford hip (OHS) scores. The mean follow-up for all patients was 7.4 years (5 to 9).
resultsPatient groups matched similarly in age, percent female, body mass index, preoperative HHS, and follow-up time. No differences were observed between the two groups in blood loss or in head size or acetabular inclination angle. HRA group had significantly longer surgery duration but less blood loss. The two groups had comparable HHS, UCLA, and OHS at the latest follow-up. Major complications, such as fracture, dislocation, infection, and adverse reactions to the metal debris (ARMD) were not found in the two groups. Only one case in LDH MoM THA group underwent revision surgery due to unexplained pain.
conclusionComparison of HRA and LDH MoM THA shows similar mid-term clinical results. HRA may be preferable due to the well-preserved bone stock and restoration of the native anatomy. LDH MoM THA may be used with caution due to the excessive metal ion release.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29455347What 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.