ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Articular noise after Delta-on-Delta revision hip arthroplasty at a long-term follow-up: incidence and impact on clinical outcomes.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe impact of noise on the outcomes of fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) revision hips remains unclear. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes in fourth-generation COC revisions, assessing: (1) the rate, type, and frequency of noise and its impact on patient satisfaction, and (2) demographic, implant-related, and radiographic factors associated with noise generation.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 63 patients with fourth-generation COC revisions. Clinical and radiographic data were collected. A non-validated phone questionnaire was administered to assess incidence, type, and impact of noise on daily life and patient satisfaction.
resultsAt a mean follow-up of 11.34 ± 2.45 years, the mean Harris hip score was 85.34 ± 11.48 points. No re-revisions were performed. Noise was reported in 32% of all the patients, half of them reporting squeaking. Patients were satisfied with the procedure regardless of noise (80% with squeaking, 90% with other noises, 88.4% with silent hips) (p = 0.42). Over 75% of patients reported being unaware of the implant when sitting, regardless noise occurrence (p = 0.59). Most patients with squeaking (80%) did not experience pain (p = 0.22). Noise had no impact on daily life in 60% of squeaking and 90% of other noise cases (p = 0.3). Younger age, higher acetabular offset and lower cup inclination were found to predict the onset of noise.
conclusionNoise occurrence in fourth-generation COC revisions was up to 30% at long-term, squeaking accounting for half of the cases. However, noise did not impact the outcomes. Age, acetabular offset and cup inclination were identified as predictive factors of noise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40536561What 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.