ArticleArthroplasty today2025
Total Hip Arthroplasty vs Hip Resurfacing in Patients Over 65: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hip-resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) has grown in popularity as an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) but is primarily utilized and indicated in younger patients with sufficient bone stock and aspirations of returning to higher level of physical activity. While the mechanical structure of HRA implants allows for sparing of the femoral neck and more anatomical weight-bearing distribution, questions surround its viability in older patients, specifically those aged 65 years or older. We undertook this study to compare the results of HRA vs THA in a population of older patients, with specific focus on patient-reported outcome measures. Methods: A retrospective, propensity-matched study was conducted on patients aged 65 years or older who underwent either HRA or THA via posterior approach. Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age, body mass index, and race. Patient-reported outcome measures, including Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement, Lower Extremity Activity Scale, Visual Analog Scale pain scores, and modified Harris Hip Score were compared at preoperative, 6-week, 1-year, and minimum 2-year follow-ups. Results: Seventy patients in each group were included. HRA patients demonstrated significantly higher Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement and Lower Extremity Activity Scale scores at 1-year and final follow-ups. Visual Analog Scale pain scores were lower, and modified Harris Hip Score was higher for HRA patients at the final follow-up. No revisions were reported in the HRA group while one revision due to infection occurred in the THA group. Conclusions: In carefully selected patients aged 65 years or older, HRA can provide comparable or superior outcomes to THA. However, the decision between HRA and THA should be individualized, considering patient factors and potential risks.
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.