Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107628›Full record

SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2024

Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Pierangelo Za, Carlo Casciaro, Giuseppe Francesco Papalia, Francesco Rosario Parisi, Umile Giuseppe Longo, Francesco Falez, Rocco Papalia

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Pierangelo ZaDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21 - 00128, Roma, Italy.
Carlo CasciaroDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21 - 00128, Roma, Italy.
Giuseppe Francesco PapaliaDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21 - 00128, Roma, Italy. g.papalia@policlinicocampus.it.ORCID 0000-0002-4140-738X
Francesco Rosario ParisiDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21 - 00128, Roma, Italy.
Umile Giuseppe LongoDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21 - 00128, Roma, Italy.
Francesco FalezDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, S. Filippo Neri Hospital, ASL Roma 1, Rome, Italy.
Rocco PapaliaDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21 - 00128, Roma, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) is the gold standard in the treatment of advanced hip osteoarthritis. However, hip resurfacing (HR) arthroplasty may present a viable alternative. The aim of this study was to compare complications, implant survivorship, and functional outcomes between HR and THA, to assess HR as a valid and safe alternative to THA.

methodsInclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English, comparing clinical outcomes and complications between HR and THA. A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library, following the PRISMA 2020 statement, from January 1, 2015 to November 30, 2023. A meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4 to compare the rates of revisions, dislocations, infection, aseptic loosening and pseudotumor, and the clinical outcomes between the two groups. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the risk of bias.

resultsA total of 8 RCT were included, involving 844 patients (387 hips for HR group and 469 hips for THA group). The mean follow-up was 7.72 years. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for UCLA and WOMAC score, revision rate, infection, aseptic loosening and pseudotumor (all p > 0.05), while the dislocation rate was significantly lower in the HR group (p = 0.04).

conclusionsHR is a safe and effective alternative to THA. However, several factors are involved to reduce the complication rate and achieve high implant survival.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipHip ProsthesisHumansOsteoarthritis, HipPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis FailureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReoperationTreatment OutcomeComplicationsFunctional outcomesHip resurfacingImplant survivorshipMeta-analysisTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID39107628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.