ArticleArthroplasty today2023
National Registry Data Analysis on a Unique Highly-Crosslinked Polyethylene for Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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.
- More intraoperative complications but similar revision rate in primary total hip arthroplasties using direct anterior approach in supervised trainees-a retrospective cohort study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Letter to the Editor regarding National Registry Data Analysis on a Unique Highly-Crosslinked Polyethylene for Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several types of highly-crosslinked polyethylene with different manufacturing processes and mechanical properties are commercially available, including HIGHCROSS (Medacta). The aim of this registry study is to ascertain the long-term safety of the HIGHCROSS liners in total hip arthroplasty and compare the revision rates with its contemporaries using real-world data to establish their safety and generalizability when used by multiple surgeons. Methods: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Swiss National Joint Registry (SIRIS) were selected for the large number of users of Medacta implants and the availability of long-term results. Three reports from SIRIS and 4 reports from AOANJRR were examined to establish the overall and Kaplan-Meier (KM) cumulative revision rate. Results: According to SIRIS, the HIGHCROSS liner was the most commonly used bearing surface with Medacta stems with overall revision rates for wear/osteolysis at 9.7 years of 0.04% and 0.03%, respectively, for AMIStem and Quadra. Based on AOANJRR, the KM cumulative revision rate for any reason of Medacta stems with HIGHCROSS liners was lower than that with ceramic liners at 3 years for MasterLoc and at 10 years for Quadra. The KM cumulative revision rate for any reasons of Medacta cementless cups with HIGHCROSS liners at 12 years was lower than the comparator made of all other implants and tribological couplings (1.6% vs 2.1%). Conclusions: This real-world data proves that long-term HIGHCROSS survival rates are comparable to other modern bearing surfaces.
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.