ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023
[Standard and special liner in primary hip arthroplasty : Current study and survey results from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD)].
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInstability constitutes the main reason for revision hip arthroplasties. Modified polyethylene liners are designed to improve the stability of a hip replacement. In July 2022 The Bone & Joint Journal published a study with data of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). The study investigated mechanical failure of standard and modified liner designs in primary, cementless total hip arthroplasty. Following the study, the EPRD conducted a survey of German clinics to research the utilization of lipped liners in primary total hip replacement.
methodsThe liner study included 151,096 primary, elective, cementless total hip arthroplasties. Data from November 2012 to November 2020 were obtained from the EPRD. Standard polyethylene liners were compared with lipped, angulated, offset and angulated/offset inlays. Cumulative incidences for endpoint revision due to mechanical complication were calculated with a competing risk analysis. The influence of other variables was investigated with a multivariate Cox regression. In the following online survey, 237 out of 789 hospitals completed a form. RESULTS AND
conclusionIn our analysis, only offset liners were, compared to standard liners, associated with a reduced risk of mechanical failure in a short to medium follow up. However, the resultant joint reaction force is increased with offset liners due to the lateralization of the hip center of rotation. Thus, the long-term performance of offset liners needs to be observed. Our survey indicated that lipped liners were implanted more often if the posterior approach was used. Moreover, lipped liners were mostly positioned with the elevated rim in the biomechanically less optimal posterior-superior quadrant. To improve stability it is suggested to position the elevated rim in the posterior-inferior quadrant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36635446What 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.