ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
10-year survival comparison of two cemented implants in primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a New Zealand regional study.
Article 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.
- Patient-reported outcome measure comparison of two cemented primary total hip arthroplasty implant combinations for osteoarthritis: a regional New Zealand study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCompare 10-year survival of the cemented highly crosslinked polyethylene Exeter
methodWe extracted national registry data for THA surgeries in the region between 1 January 2003 and 30 June 2023 and report the 10-year survival and reasons for revision of the two fully cemented implants (n = 495). We compared standard Kaplan-Meier estimates using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard models investigated the potential influence of six patient variables on the survival of each implant: sex, age, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) rating, and funding source (public/private).
resultsNo statistically significant difference in 10-year survival rate between the implants (p = 0.334) (ECF 95.6% [93.4, 97.9], Rimfit 97.0% [95.9, 98.2]) or statistically significant difference in revision reasons between the implants (p = 0.09) was noted. Cox regression revealed no statistically significant influence of any of the six patient variables on the 10-year survival of the ECF (p = 0.584) or Rimfit (p = 0.611).
conclusionBoth implants exceeded 95% survival at 10-years, which is favourable compared to the corresponding 94.8% national survivorship of cemented implants in NZ. There is no statistically significant difference in the 10-year survival rate or reasons for revision of the two cemented implants compared in this region. The Rimfit appears a suitable alternative to the ECF, from a survival and revision perspective.
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.