Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32764592›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2020

Inaccurate offset restoration in total hip arthroplasty results in reduced range of motion.

Markus Weber, Christian Merle, Danyal H Nawabi, Sebastian Dendorfer, Joachim Grifka, Tobias Renkawitz

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Native hip geometry restoration in total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective analysis of eight different short stems.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Markus WeberDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Regensburg University Medical Center, Kaiser-Karl V.-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Germany. markus.weber@klinik.uni-regensburg.de.
Christian MerleDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Heidelberg University Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Danyal H NawabiOrthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA.
Sebastian DendorferFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Laboratory for Biomechanics, Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule, Regensburg, Germany.
Joachim GrifkaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Regensburg University Medical Center, Kaiser-Karl V.-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Germany.
Tobias RenkawitzDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Heidelberg University Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Offset restoration in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with postoperative range of motion (ROM) and gait kinematics. We aimed to research into the impact of high offset (HO) and standard stems on postoperative ROM. 121 patients received cementless THA through a minimally-invasive anterolateral approach. A 360° hip ROM analysis software calculated impingement-free hip movement based on postoperative 3D-CTs compared to ROM values necessary for activities of daily living (ADL). The same model was then run a second time after changing the stem geometry between standard and HO configuration with the implants in the same position. HO stems showed higher ROM for all directions between 4.6 and 8.9° (p < 0.001) compared with standard stems but with high interindividual variability. In the subgroup with HO stems for intraoperative offset restoration, the increase in ROM was even higher for all ROM directions with values between 6.1 and 14.4° (p < 0.001) compared to offset underrestoration with standard stems. Avoiding offset underrestoration resulted in a higher amount of patients of over 20% for each ROM direction that fulfilled the criteria for ADL (p < 0.001). In contrast, in patients with standard stems for offset restoration ROM did increase but not clinically relevant by offset overcorrection for all directions between 3.1 and 6.1° (p < 0.001). Offset overcorrection by replacing standard with HO stems improved ROM for ADL in a low number of patients below 10% (p > 0.03). Patient-individual restoration of offset is crucial for free ROM in THA. Both over and underrestoration of offset should be avoided.

Indexed as

Range of Motion, ArticularAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPostoperative PeriodTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID32764592
PMCPMC7413373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.