SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
The mix and match approach in primary total hip arthroplasty reveals comparable or lower revision rates to matched components: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Salvaging failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a polyethylene acetabular revision.Annals of joint · 2026Article
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
introductionThe mix and match (stem and cup from different manufacturers/systems, MM) approach in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) involves combining components from different manufacturers. Despite various configurations discussed in literature and evidence supporting the safety of MM, controversy persists regarding safety and long term outcomes compared to matched components. Our study aimed to compare the revision rates of MM versus matched components. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo databases were searched for English full-text articles published until January, 2024 that evaluated revision rates after primary MM THA. Additionally, MM revision rates data was extracted from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies was used for quality assessment.
resultsThree national and one hospital registry studies were included, of which three demonstrate MM as a common practice (19-24%). All studies found comparable revision rates for MM cohorts, or even slightly improved survival rates in MM cohorts concerning revision rate and PROMs, mostly lacking clinical relevance. These findings align with the data reported in the EPRD, with revision rates of approximately 3.6% after 6 years in both MM and matched THA.
conclusionsEmploying MM in primary THA presents a feasible and safe approach, capable of providing custom fit tailored to individual patients with revision rates comparable to those of matched 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.