ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2026
Uncemented hip resurfacing in patients over 65: 16-year outcomes from a large, single-surgeon series.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHip resurfacing is often reserved for younger, active patients due to concerns over implant durability and fracture risk in older patients. However, there is a lack of long-term data evaluating outcomes in patients over 65 years old at time of surgery. This study addresses this gap by directly comparing implant survivorship, failure and complication rates, and clinical outcomes in a younger control cohort from the same large single-surgeon series (> 6000 cases).
methodsWe queried a large, prospective institutional clinical database comprising over 7000 hip resurfacing cases performed by a single, high-volume surgeon; findings may not be generalizable to lower-volume or less-experienced centers. From this cohort, we identified 395 cases in patients ≥ 65 years (mean age 68.8) and 5,106 cases in patients < 65 years of age at time of surgery. All included patients had a minimum of 2-year follow-up, and 88.4% of the study cohort had up-to-date follow-up.
resultsThere was no difference in the 98.6% 10- and 98.2% 16-year Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship of our over-65 study group when compared to a younger under-65 control group. These results exceed the NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) criteria and registry benchmarks for total hip replacement from three major registries. The early femoral failure rate (femoral failure occurring < 1 year postoperative) was only 0.3%, which compares favorably with total hip arthroplasty perioperative fracture data. The long-term femoral fracture rate over the duration of this study was 1.3% for this older cohort, lower than what was reported for total hip arthroplasty.
conclusionsThis is the first known long-term study to demonstrate that hip resurfacing patients over 65 can achieve implant survivorship rates equivalent to younger resurfacing patients and superior to national total hip arthroplasty registry benchmarks. These findings challenge age-based restrictions and support expanded candidacy for hip resurfacing in select older adults when managed by experienced surgeons.
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.