Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29951259›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2018

Bearing surfaces in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Luigi Zagra, Enrico Gallazzi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Ceramic-on-ceramic versus polyethylene-based bearings in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Oxidised zirconium heads show a lower linear wear rate than 28-mm metal heads against XLPE: a retrospective analysis.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luigi ZagraHip Department, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Italy.
Enrico GallazziHip Department, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is widely considered one of the most successful surgical procedures in orthopaedics. It is associated with high satisfaction rates and significant improvements in quality of life following surgery. On the other hand, the main cause of late revision is osteolysis and wear, often a result of failure of bearing surfaces.Currently, several options are available to the surgeon when choosing the bearing surface in THA (ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE), metal-on-polyethylene (MoPE)), each with advantages and drawbacks.Very few studies have directly compared the various combinations of bearings at long-term follow-up. Randomized controlled trials show similar short- to mid-term survivorship among the best performing bearing surfaces (CoC, CoXLPE and MoXLPE). Selection of the bearing surface is often 'experience-based' rather than 'evidence-based'.The aim of this paper is therefore to evaluate the main advantages and drawbacks of various types of tribology in THA, while providing practical suggestions for the surgeon on the most suitable bearing surface option for each patient. Cite this article:

Indexed as

bearingsceramichipmetal-on-metalpolyethylenetotal hip arthroplastytribology

Identifiers

PMID29951259
PMCPMC5994629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.