ArticleArthroplasty today2021
A Comparative Cohort Study With a 20-Year Age Gap: Hip Resurfacing in Patients Aged ≤35 Years and Patients Aged ≥55 Years.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total Hip Arthroplasty vs Hip Resurfacing in Patients Over 65: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Hip Resurfacing vs Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Younger than 35 Years: A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes.Arthroplasty today · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis single-center retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate and compare implant survival and patient-reported outcome measures in 2 distinct age groups separated by 20 years who underwent hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).
methodsBetween 2005 and 2014, 2042 HRAs were performed by a single-surgeon, and 75 and 377 hips from patients aged ≤35 years and ≥55 years, respectively, were included in this study. Implant survival was determined for all available hips. Clinical features and patient-reported outcome measures were collected.
resultsSeven hips were revised, 4 for aseptic loosening of one or both components, one for infection, one for accelerated wear and metallosis, and one for femoral neck fracture. There was no difference in all-cause 10-year revision, with 97.1% (95% confidence interval 80.9 to 99.6) and 99.6% (95% confidence interval: 97 to 99.9) survivorship in younger and older patients, respectively (
conclusionOriginal to our study was the isolation and comparison of 2 distinct age groups. With excellent results in disparate age groups, HRA can be applied to a broad patient demographic and is suitable for those patients who want to achieve a high activity level as defined by Lower Extremity Activity Scale or University of California, Los Angeles, scores.
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.