ArticleThe bone & joint journal2019
Gait after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: an age-matched controlled prospective study.
Article in The bone & joint journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical Assessment of Functional Tasks Beyond Level Walking Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026Article
- Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a gait analysis study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- A 15° valgus femoral prosthesis orientation optimizes biomechanics in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- The accuracy of restoration of femoral head centre of rotation in the anteroposterior plane after uncemented total hip arthroplasty : a CT-based study.Bone & joint research · 2022Article
- Sport after total hip arthroplasty: undoubted progress but still some unknowns.The bone & joint journal · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study was to assess the functional gain achieved following hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 28 patients (23 male, five female; mean age, 56 years (25 to 73)) awaiting Birmingham HRA volunteered for this prospective gait study, with an age-matched control group of 26 healthy adults (16 male, ten female; mean age, 56 years (33 to 84)). The Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and gait analysis using an instrumented treadmill were used preoperatively and more than two years postoperatively to measure the functional change attributable to the intervention.
resultsThe mean OHS improved significantly from 27 to 46 points (p < 0.001) at a mean of 29 months (12 to 60) after HRA. The mean metal ion levels at a mean 32 months (13 to 60) postoperatively were 1.71 (0.77 to 4.83) µg/l (ppb) and 1.77 (0.68 to 4.16) µg/l (ppb) for cobalt and chromium, respectively. When compared with healthy controls, preoperative patients overloaded the contralateral good hip, limping significantly. After HRA, patients walked at high speeds, with symmetrical gait, statistically indistinguishable from healthy controls over almost all characteristics. The control group could only be distinguished by an increased push-off force at higher speeds, which may reflect the operative approach.
conclusionPatients undergoing HRA improved their preoperative gait pattern of a significant limp to a symmetrical gait at high speeds and on inclines, almost indistinguishable from normal controls. HRA with an approved device offers substantial functional gains, almost indistinguishable from healthy controls. Cite this article:
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.