Superior patient reported outcome measures reported post Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) revision arthroplasty in the setting of an objective surgical indication.

Andrew J Hughes, Mark Curtin, Evelyn Murphy, William Curtin, Colin G Murphy

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Andrew J HughesDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland.

Mark CurtinDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland.

Evelyn MurphyDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland.

William CurtinDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland.

Colin G MurphyDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip system displayed unexpectedly high failure rates. All patients who underwent revision arthroplasty at our institution were identified. Indications for revision were classified as objectively identifiable or performed for unexplained pain. Clinical outcomes, post ASR revision, were superior in cases where the aetiology for failure was identifiable. Pain and function improved reliably when a targeted objective indication was identified pre-revision, but failed to do so in cases of unexplained pain. Surgeons familiar with the results of this study will be empowered to discuss expectations and realistic outcomes with their patients undergoing complex revision arthroplasty cases.

Indexed as

Articular surface replacementClinical outcomesMetal on metalPatient reported outcome measuresRevision arthroplastyTotal hip replacement

Identifiers

PMID32071530

DOI10.1016/j.jor.2020.01.052

PMCPMC7016020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.