ArticleArthroplasty today2020
Acetabular Liner Dissociation: A Comparative Study of Two Contemporary Uncemented Acetabular Components.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissociation of liner from cup in THA: does liner damage affect the risk of dissociation?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Spontaneous resolution of asymptomatic alumina matrix composite ceramic liner dissociation: a case report.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Article
- Polyethylene liner dissociation in a DePuy pinnacle cup with a manufacturer analysis of the failed component.BMJ case reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are a number of reports of polyethylene liner dissociation of third-generation modular acetabular components. This study compares our experience with 2 contemporary systems to determine whether this is an implant- or class-specific problem.
methodsThis is a single-center retrospective study of 961 primary total hip arthroplasties using 2 third-generation modular cementless acetabular shells: Pinnacle (535) and R3 (426) with a polyethylene liner. Details of all revisions were obtained from local databases and the New Zealand Joint Registry. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for all-cause revision, acetabular reoperation (including liner exchange), and liner dissociation.
resultsThere were 17 revisions in group 1 (Pinnacle; DePuy Synthes): 17 for recurrent dislocation, 6 for liner dissociations (1.12%), 3 for femoral loosening, and one for deep infection. In group 2 (R3; Smith and Nephew), there were 4 revision procedures: one for infection, 2 for dislocation, and one femoral revision for periprosthetic fracture. There were significantly higher proportions revised in group 1 for all-cause revision, acetabular reoperation, and dissociation (
conclusionsThere was a higher revision rate for the Pinnacle acetabular component than for the R3 at 7 years. This was mainly due to polyethylene liner dissociation that can occur early or late. It appears to be a problem specific to the Pinnacle cup design rather than a feature of similar third-generation acetabular components.
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.