ArticleActa orthopaedica2019
Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - The Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement (PER) was developed to preserve proximal femoral bone and minimize femoral neck fracture associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). We studied the survival and risk of revision of HRA compared with cementless metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the survival and risk of revision of the Mitch PER compared with MoP THA.Patients and methods - Using propensity score, we matched 1,057 HRA to 1,057 MoP THA and 202 Mitch PER to 1,010 MoP THA from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. To estimate the relative risk (RR) of revision, we used regression with the pseudo-value approach and treated death as a competing risk.Results - The cumulative incidence for any revision of HRA at 10 years' follow-up was 11% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-13) and 6.4% (CI 5.8-7.0) for MoP THA. The RR of any revision was 1.5 (CI 1.1-2.1) for HRA at 10 years' follow-up. By excluding the ASR components, the RR of revision at 10 years was 1.2 (CI 0.8-1.7). The cumulative incidence of revision was 9.6% (CI 4.2-18) for Mitch PER and 5.4% (CI 5.1-5.7) for MoP THA at 8 years. The RR of revision was 2.0 (CI 0.9-4.3) for Mitch PER at 8 years' follow-up.Interpretation - The HRA had increased risk of revision compared with the MoP THA. When excluding ASR, the HRA group had similar risk of revision compared with MoP THA. The Mitch PER did not have a statistically significant increased risk of revision compared with MoP THA.
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.