ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Seventeen-year outcomes for a contemporary total hip resurfacing prosthesis in Australia: an analysis of registry data with comparison to best performing conventional and most prevalent resurfacing prostheses.
Article in Journal of 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study addresses survivorship up to 17 years for the hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) system most commonly used in Australia at present. Here we compare overall and age-stratified revision rates of the study HRA to a benchmark HRA and the five conventional prostheses with the lowest 10-year cumulative percent revision (5THA) in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). We further compare outcomes for the resurfacing target cohort of men under 65 years. Finally, we compare revision diagnoses for the study prosthesis and benchmarks. Methods: AOANJRR data were analysed for osteoarthritis patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty, to the end of 2023. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we compared revision rates (estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves with 95 % confidence intervals) across the three groups. Femoral head sizes <50 mm for HRA and <32 mm for 5THA were excluded. Cumulative incidence plots were used to compare revision diagnoses. Results: For the study HRA, the 17-year survivorship was 94 %, with revision risks comparable to the benchmark HRA but inferior to 5THA. For patients under 55 years, revision rates were comparable to those of 5THA and superior to the benchmark HRA. Revision risks were not significantly different between the three groups for men under 65 (95 % survivorship for the study HRA). Fracture and metal-related pathology were the most likely reasons for early and late revision respectively, while loosening and fracture were the most common revision diagnoses for the benchmark HRA and 5THA respectively. Conclusion: The study HRA achieved similar survivorship to the benchmark HRA and 5THA in men <65 years, but inferior to 5THA overall. Outcomes were best for younger patients. Adverse metal reactions remain a concern, with longer follow-up essential to assess their impacts and other trends in revision diagnoses.
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.