ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022
Comparing uncemented, hybrid and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in young patients, a New Zealand Joint Registry study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes of cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: A systematic review with narrative synthesis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Surgical and functional outcomes of primary un-cemented total hip arthroplasty.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- 10-year survival comparison of two cemented implants in primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a New Zealand regional study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Articulating Materials Are Determinants of Survivorship of Hip Arthroplasties Performed for Nontraumatic Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Exeter cemented total hip arthroplasty in a county hospital: survivorship of eight hundred and ninety four hips with a minimum ten-year follow up.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in High-Risk Medical Device Registries: A Scoping Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
- Is there a difference in mobility and inpatient physical therapy need after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty? A decade-by-decade analysis from 60 to 99 years.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Comparing modern uncemented, hybrid and cemented implant combinations in older patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty, a New Zealand Joint Registry study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement in patients 50 years of age or younger.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
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
backgroundDespite increasing use of uncemented implants in young patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is minimal evidence for specific implant combinations in this group. We analysed the most commonly used uncemented (Corail-Pinnacle), hybrid (Exeter-Trident/Tritanium), and fully cemented (Exeter) implant combinations in the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) in patients aged under 40 and between 40 and 55 years.
methodsAll THAs recorded in the NZJR between 1999 and 2018 were included. The 40-55 and < 40 age groups were analysed separately. Demographic data, implant type, and outcome data including implant survival, reason for revision, and post-operative Oxford Hip Scores were obtained from the NZJR, and detailed survival analyses were performed. The primary outcome was revision for any reason.
resultsWe identified 4152 THAs in the 40-55 group and 422 in the < 40 group. In the 40-55 group, revision rates and patient-reported outcome measure scores were comparable between the uncemented implant combination (0.70/100 component years) and the hybrid implant combination (0.62/100 component years), whereas the cemented implant combination exhibited a statistically significant higher revision rate (1.75/100 component years) (p < 0.001). In the < 40 group, revision rate for the hybrid implant combination (0.46/100 component years) was significantly lower than the uncemented implant combination (1.54/100 component years).
conclusionThe most commonly used hybrid and uncemented implant combinations provided equivalent survival and functional outcomes in patients aged 40-55 years. More research is required to guide implant selection in patients aged < 40 years. The authors suggest a transition away from comparing classes of implants (cemented, uncemented, hybrid) given the diverse product range within these categories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34319471What 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.