ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Mid-term comparison of highly porous versus hydroxyapatite-coated porous surface in the same cup system: a retrospective single-center study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we aimed to compare the mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of highly porous and hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated porous titanium cups using the same cementless cup system in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). We investigated the differences in radiolucent line (RLL) formation, cup migration, and clinical outcomes between the two surface processing methods.
methodsThis retrospective study included 209 hips (116 in the highly porous group and 93 in the HA porous group) with a minimum follow-up period of over 4 years. Using standardized anteroposterior pelvic radiographs, we conducted radiographic evaluations to assess cup orientation, initial gaps, and RLLs. Migration was analyzed using Einzel-Bild-Rontgen Analysis (EBRA), focusing on a subset of 28 randomly selected cups from each group as determined by power analysis. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) hip score. The primary outcome was the incidence of cup revision, and the secondary outcomes were postoperative JOA scores and the incidence of initial gaps and RLLs.
resultsNo cup revisions were made in either group. Both groups had significant postoperative improvements in the JOA scores, with no differences observed during the follow-up period. At baseline, the initial gaps were observed at similar rates (highly porous vs. HA porous [51% vs. 52%]; p = 0.97). However, at the 5-year follow-up, the initial gaps were resolved in nearly all cases. In the highly porous group, RLLs were significantly more frequent during the first-year follow-up (23% vs. 2%; p < 0.0001). However, they decreased in all cases, and none of them exhibited RLL expansion. EBRA migration analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups.
conclusionBoth groups demonstrated comparable mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. The highly porous group exhibited higher initial RLL incidences. However, RLL diminished over time without compromising the migration or clinical results. Both designs are reliable options for cementless THA.
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.