ArticleActa orthopaedica2019
Uncemented cups with and without screw holes in primary THA: a Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register study with 22,725 hips.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2019. 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.
- Acetabular screws do not improve early revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty. An instrumented registry analysis.International orthopaedics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - Uncemented cups in total hip arthroplasty (THA) are often augmented with additional screws to enhance their primary stability. We investigated whether there is a difference in the risk for revision between cups with screw holes and cups without screw holes. Patients and methods - We analyzed the risk for cup revision of uncemented cups registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between 2000 and 2017 with respe ct to the presence of screw holes. Only patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) were included. 22,725 cups, including 12,354 without screw holes and 10,371 with screw holes, were evaluated. Revision rates at 2 and 10 years after the primary operation were analyzed. Results - At a median follow-up time of 3.4 years (0-18), 459 cup revisions were reported. The main reasons for cup revision during the whole observation time were infection, 52% of all cup revisions, and dislocation, 26% of all cup revisions. The survival rate with cup revision due to aseptic loosening as endpoint was 99.9% (95% CI 99.8-99.9) at 2 years for both cups with and cups without screw holes, and the survival rates at 10 years were 99.5% (CI 99.3-99.7) and 99.1% (CI 98.6-99.5), respectively. Cups without screw holes showed a decreased risk of revision due to any reason at both 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.6, CI 0.5-0.8) and 10 years (HR 0.7, CI 0.5-0.9). Interpretation - We found a very low revision rate for aseptic loosening with modern, uncemented cup designs. Cups with screw holes had an increased risk of revision due to any reason in patients with primary OA.
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.