ArticlePloS one2021
Computational modelling of hip resurfacing arthroplasty investigating the effect of femoral version on hip biomechanics.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association of femoral retroversion and out-toeing gait with development of hip osteoarthritis and treatment: a systematic review.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Pooled it
- Analysis of contact pressure in a 3D model of dual-mobility hip joint prosthesis under a gait cycle.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Abnormal Spinopelvic Motion and Spine Deformity are Associated With Native Femoral Retroversion in the Setting of Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimHow reduced femoral neck anteversion alters the distribution of pressure and contact area in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty (HRA) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively describe the biomechanical implication of different femoral neck version angles on HRA using a finite element analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of sixty models were constructed to assess the effect of different femoral neck version angles on three different functional loads: 0°of hip flexion, 45°of hip flexion, and 90° of hip flexion. Femoral version was varied between 30° of anteversion to 30° of retroversion. All models were tested with the acetabular cup in four different positions: (1) 40°/15° (inclination/version), (2) 40°/25°, (3) 50°/15°, and (4) 50°/25°. Differences in range of motion due to presence of impingement, joint contact pressure, and joint contact area with different femoral versions and acetabular cup positions were calculated.
resultsImpingement was found to be most significant with the femur in 30° of retroversion, regardless of acetabular cup position. Anterior hip impingement occurred earlier during hip flexion as the femur was progressively retroverted. Impingement was reduced in all models by increasing acetabular cup inclination and anteversion, yet this consequentially led to higher contact pressures. At 90° of hip flexion, contact pressures and contact areas were inversely related and showed most notable change with 30° of femoral retroversion. In this model, the contact area migrated towards the anterior implant-bone interface along the femoral neck.
conclusionFemoral retroversion in HRA influences impingement and increases joint contact pressure most when the hip is loaded in flexion. Increasing acetabular inclination decreases the area of impingement but doing so causes a reciprocal increase in joint contact pressure. It may be advisable to study femoral neck version pre-operatively to better choose hip resurfacing arthroplasty candidates.
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.