Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Despite higher revision rate, MoM large-head THA offers better clinical scores than HR: 14-year results from a randomized controlled trial involving 48 patients.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04516239 (Prospective Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Gait Analysis and Clinical Function After Metal on Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty With Large Diameter Femoral Head and Metal on Metal Total Hip Resurfacing.), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
Prospective Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Gait Analysis and Clinical Function After Metal on Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty With Large Diameter Femoral Head and Metal on Metal Total Hip Resurfacing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Choice of Hip Arthroplasty: HRA or THA? Revealed by Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.International orthopaedics · 2024Pooled it
- Complications and mid to long term outcomes for hip resurfacing versus total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative Outcomes of Resurfacing vs Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in orthopedics · 2026Review
- Functional Outcomes of Different Bearing Surfaces for Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Review
- Resurfacing Hip Arthroplasty Is a Safe and Effective Alternative to Total Hip Arthroplasty in Young Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Metal-on-Metal Hips: Ten-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of the ADEPT Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing and Modular Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe high failure rates of metal on metal (MoM) large diameter head total hip arthroplasty (LDH THA) and hip resurfacing (HR) prevented their long-term comparisons with regards to clinical outcome. Such knowledge would be important as ceramic LDH bearing is now available. With long-term follow-up, we investigated the difference in 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); 2) revision and adverse events rates, and 3) metal ion levels between MoM LDH THA and HR.
methodsForty-eight patients were randomized for LDH THA (24) or HR (24) with the same MoM articulation. At a mean follow-up of 14 years, we compared between groups different PROMs, the number of revisions and adverse events, whole blood Cobalt (Co) and Chromium (Cr) ion levels, and radiographic signs of implant dysfunction.
resultsLDH THA (all cases: revised and well-functioning) had significantly better WOMAC (94 versus 85, p = 0.04), and more frequently reported having no limitation (p = 0.04). LDH THA revision rate was 20.8% (5/24) versus 8.3% (2/24) for HR (p = 0.4). Mean Co and Cr ion levels were higher in LDH THA compared to the HR (Co: 3.8 μg/L vs 1.7 μg/L; p = 0.04 and Cr: 1.9 μg/L vs 1.4 μg/L, p = 0.1). On radiographic analyses, 2 LDH THAs showed signs of adverse reaction to metal debris, whereas 1 loose femoral HR component was documented.
conclusionIn the long-term, MoM LDH THA had a high trunnion related revision rate but nonetheless showed better PROMs compared to HR. Provided with a well-functioning modular junction, non-MoM LDH THA would offer an appealing option.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04516239 ), August 18, 2020. Retrospectively registered.
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.