ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Modern cementless acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty performed for primary osteoarthritis: a comparative registry study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two-year follow-up of a novel fully 3D-printed off-the-shelf humeral total shoulder arthroplasty prosthesis.JSES international · 2026Article
- Trabecular metal technology (TMT) cups in primary total hip arthroplasty: outcomes and survivorship of a large cohort.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- [Study on assessment methods for acetabular cup size in total hip arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
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
introductionComparative studies evaluating the different material and surface finishing of acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) are lacking. Using a regional arthroplasty registry, the survival rates and the hazard ratios of different cups in THA performed for primary osteoarthritis were assessed, using endpoints: (1) every cup failure, (2) cup aseptic loosening, (3) periprosthetic infection. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe inclusion criteria were: residing patients, THA for primary osteoarthritis, Delta-on-Delta bearings, head sizes 32 mm and 36 mm. Only the most implanted cementless cups were considered and were grouped according to material and surface finishing into three cohorts: 3D printed cups (I), ultraporous tantalum or titanium- coated cups (II), second-generation cups (III). 15,737 cups were included in the study: 9,862 cups (62.7%) in cohort I, 2,067 implants (13.1%) in cohort II, 3,808 implants (24.2%) in cohort III.
resultsThe three cohorts achieved comparable general 10-year survival rates (p = 0.62). In I and II cohorts, the survival rates of the cup types within cohorts were analogous (p = 0.86 and p = 0.31), but not in cohort III (p = 0.004). The hazard ratios for overall failure adjusted for age and sex were similar among the cohorts. Regarding cup aseptic loosening, the three cohorts had similar rates (p = 0.48) and similar adjusted hazard ratios. With periprosthetic hip infection as endpoint, the survival rates and the adjusted hazard ratios of the three cohorts were comparable (p = 0.68).
conclusions3D printed cups provided similar 10-year outcomes compared to ultraporous cups and second-generation cups, with no additional risks of aseptic loosening and infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (therapeutic study). TAKE HOME MESSAGE: - 3D printed cups provided similar 10-year outcomes compared to ultraporous cups and second-generation cups. - There is no additional risks of aseptic loosening and infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39311939What 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.