ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2020
Large Diameter Head in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Did the dislocation risk after primary total hip arthroplasty decrease over time? A meta-analysis across six decades.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Long-Term Prosthesis Survival After Total Hip Arthroplasty in Young Women with Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Narrative Review of Instability, Revision Risk, and Reproductive Health Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The role of femoral head size in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: analysis of a cohort of 3813 patients with long term follow-up.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Long-term survival analysis of cementless large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Modern Dual Mobility Implants in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Stability, Survival, and Ion Safety Evaluation: The Comprehensive Review.JB & JS open accessReview
- Total hip arthroplasty with monobloc press-fit acetabular components and large-diameter bearings for atypical acetabula is safe: a consecutive case series of 125 hips with mean follow-up of 9 years.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe literature around use of Large Diameter Heads (LDH) is abundantly available for revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) but is lacking for primary uncomplicated THA. This systematic review was undertaken to synthesize data around primary THA involving LDH and analyze the associated complications (dislocation, volumetric wear, implant survivorship and functional score) along with reported effects on range of motion (ROM), patient reported outcomes and impingement rate/groin pain.
methodsA PRISMA compliant systematic review was done using extensive search in PubMed database, along with offline search looking for the literature published in English language between 2008 and 2018. The articles providing data on the use of large diameter heads (LDH) (36 mm or larger) on various bearing surfaces were collected. This included robust national joint registries of different countries. Narrative approach to data synthesis was used.
resultsA total of 23 papers met our inclusion criteria, including six national joint registries. It was observed that LDH had significantly low dislocation rates, excellent implant survival rate as per Kaplan-Meier survivorship (> 90% at five years). Surgical approaches, except Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS), did not increase any risk of dislocation as long as it was meticulously repaired. There was no significant improvement in any functional scores or improved ROM.
conclusionsLDH of 32-36 mm are now commonly used in primary THA and is accepted as a popular size. The beneficial effects of a large head size are negated beyond 38 mm. The most favored size for LDH THA, therefore, is 36 mm contrary to the older literature favoring 28 mm.
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.