ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2024
Press-fit vs threaded acetabulum components for total hip arthroplasty - A systematic review with metanalysis.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Early Outcomes of Screwless Press-fit Acetabular Cups in Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Prospective Study from Eastern India.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Is There Still a Place for Threaded Spherical Acetabular Components in Modern Arthroplasty? Observations Based on an Average 14-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Threaded acetabular components (TACs) have been shown to offer greater initial stability compared to press-fit acetabular components (PFACs). Despite these biomechanical advantages, the use of threaded cups remains. This study compares the outcomes of TACs to PFACs in total hip arthroplasty (THA), providing evidence-based data regarding their failure rates and radiological evaluation. Methods: A meticulous research of PubMed and MEDLINE databases, following the PRISMA guidelines, was conducted, to identify all articles regarding the outcome of the use of TCAs compared to PFACs in THA. Subsequently, statistical analysis with metanalysis concerning: 1) the instances of revision due to aseptic loosening and 2) the radiological evaluations of TACs compared to PFACs and sensitivity analysis were performed. Results: This metanalysis encompassed seven studies, enrolling 7878 cases of THA utilizing PFAC, and 6684 cases using TAC. The overall odds ratio (OR) for revision due to aseptic loosening in THA using PFAC compared to TAC was 3.10 (95 % CI 0.37-25.72). Additionally, when assessing radiolucency findings across the same categories, the pooled OR was 0.53 (95 % CI 0.26-1.08). An examination of studies with larger sample sizes revealed no statistically significant variance. After adjusting for age, no substantial difference was detected. However, upon gender adjustment, it was observed that females undergoing THA with PFAC had a 5-fold risk of revision (OR = 5.26, 95 % CI 0.25-111.91, p-value = 0.29) compared to females with TAC, although without reaching statistical significance. Moreover, females exhibited a slightly elevated risk for revision due to aseptic loosening post-PFAC THA compared to males [(OR = 5.26, 95 % CI 0.25-111.91) (OR = 2.51, 95 % CI 0.01-1051.68) respectively], and for radiolucency findings [(OR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.20-1.11) (OR 0.29, 95 % CI 0.03-3.36) respectively]. Conclusions: The PFACs remain the main option for total hip reconstruction, while TACs might be a viable alternative, especially in cases of osteoporosis.
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.