ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2023
Is hip resection arthroplasty a successful definitive treatment?
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hip resection arthroplasty as a primary treatment of displaced neck fracture in non-ambulatory and fragile patients.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Review
- The Influence of Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement Spacer Type on Outcomes of the First Stage of a Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Hip resection arthroplasty as a definitive treatment is an uncommon indication, although still in use selectively. This study evaluates a cohort of patients who have undergone hip resection arthroplasty surgery indicated as a definitive treatment, in order to assess the rate of re-operation, the rate of infection, and the mortality rates. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational, descriptive analysis of a cohort of patients who had undergone a hip resection arthroplasty intended as a definitive treatment, in two University Hospitals from 1994 to 2020. The exclusion criteria were the implantation of a hip cement spacer, or a temporary hip resection arthroplasty in patients undergoing a two-staged surgical approach. We found 26 cases of hip resection arthroplasty. We recorded the indications for a definitive hip resection arthroplasty, the outcomes and complications, and analyzed the success of the hip resection arthroplasty as a definitive surgery using a Kaplan-Meier curve. Results: Seven cases (26.9%) required a re-operation after the hip resection arthroplasty, four cases for persistent hip infection, and in the three remaining a conversion to a total hip arthroplasty was re-considered due to a good medical evolution and non-tolerance to the low functional outcome. The mortality rate was 61.5% (27 days-20 years), with a 19.2% mortality rate in the first 5 years. All the cases that required another surgery after the hip resection arthroplasty were re-operated within the first 18 months. Conclusion: Unfortunately, hip resection arthroplasty continues to show elevated re-operation rate and early mortality rate, as well as low functional outcomes. Two-staged hip revision arthroplasty is the surgical treatment of choice in patients suffering from a periprosthetic joint infection, however we believe that hip resection arthroplasty should be considered in fragile patients, who have endured multiple revision surgeries, or their comorbidities make them unfit from further surgeries.
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.