ArticleArthroplasty today2020
Pinnacle Ultamet metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty survivorship: average 10-year follow-up.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revision rate of large head diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: long-term results.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Minimum 10-Year Results of Modular Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is unclear whether a connection exists between femoral head size, offset, neck length, and cup abduction angles, and rate of revision in metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) implant systems.
methodsA retrospective review of MoM THA completed by a single surgeon with a single implant between 2003 and 2008 was conducted. Patient demographics, implant data, radiographs, and revision details were collected at follow-up. Incidence rates for revision and osteolysis were calculated in regard to the femoral head size, stem offset, neck length, and cup abduction angles.
resultsSix hundred and ninety two THAs were identified, with 79% of patients returning for a median follow-up of 10.3 years (interquartile range = 6.0-12.3). The median time to revision was 7.5 years (interquartile range = 5.3-9.9) among 27 total revision surgeries. The overall incidence rate of revision was 5.4 revisions per 1000 person-years, 3.0 revisions per 1000 person-years for adverse local tissue reaction. Hips with a cup abduction angle of ≤40° had revisions at nearly twice the rate of those with an angle of 41°-50° (incidence rate ratio = 1.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.92, 4.29). Hips with a 9 mm neck length had an increased rate of revision (incidence rate ratio = 5.94, 95% confidence interval: 1.33, 26.55) relative to those with a neck length of 0 mm. Rates of osteolysis were similar between implants of different head sizes, neck lengths and cup abduction angles.
conclusionsMoM implant systems with longer necks and smaller cup abduction angles may lead to increased need for revision. Results from this study suggest a need for closer long-term follow-up of MoM THA systems.
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.