ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2023
Clinical outcome of Bioball universal adapter in revision hip arthroplasty.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mix and match strategies in revision total hip arthroplasty: a review of techniques and outcomes.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Review
- Bridging the Compatibility Gap in Revision Hip Arthroplasty with 14/16 Tapers: Long-Term Outcomes of the Bioball™ System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
Background: Removal of a well-fixed uncemented femoral component in revision hip arthroplasty is challenging. A modular head-neck adapter provides an option to optimise the femoral offset and anteversion, avoiding the need for femoral stem revision. Aim: To present the clinical results following revision arthroplasty with the Bioball head-neck adapter in the elderly American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) Grade II, III & IV patients. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of our database was performed, and all patients classed as ASA grades II, III, & IV treated with the Bioball Universal Adapter (BUA) for 10 years were included. The indication for revision, stem retention, type of adapter, and head size were identified. Patients were contacted by a research nurse to assess the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and any symptoms of instability at a minimum of one year post revision surgery. Results: Our study included 47 patients. 5 (10.6%) were ASA II, 19 (40.4%) were ASA III and 23 (49%) were ASA IV. The mean age was 74 years. The mean follow up was 52 months ± 28.4 SD. The median FJS was 86 ± 11.6 SD. The median OHS was 43 ± 6.2 SD. One patient (2.1%) developed recurrent dislocation following lumbar spinal fusion. None of the other patients experienced instability. The survival rate for the adapter was 98%. Conclusion: The BUA gives good clinical outcomes with very low post revision instability. It is a valuable option for the elderly because it avoids the morbidity and risks associated with the removal of a well-fixed femoral stem. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.