ArticleBone & joint open2026
Does the presence of a lipped highly crosslinked polyethylene liner affect the survival of total hip arthroplasty implants? : a registry-based retrospective cohort study.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of lipped liners (LL) on implant survival in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), focusing on mechanical complications such as dislocation and aseptic loosening. Given the conflicting evidence on LL performance, we conducted a large-scale registry analysis to clarify their long-term safety and effectiveness compared to flat liners (FL). Methods: We analyzed 15,222 primary THAs performed in 13,989 patients between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2021, using data from the Emilia-Romagna Registry of Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO). Patients were allocated into two groups: 7,619 received FL and 7,603 received LL. The primary outcome was implant survival, with mechanical complications as key endpoints. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox regression were employed to assess the revision risk, adjusted for age, sex, type of stem fixation, femoral head material, and liner design. Results: Overall, no significant difference in revision rates was observed comparing groups when all the causes of revisions were considered (log-rank p = 0.088); at 15 years, cumulative implant survival was 96.9% for FL and 96.4% for LL. Revisions for dislocation (28.2% vs 19.0%) and aseptic acetabular loosening (19.2% vs 13.8%) were more frequent in the LL group. When considering mechanical complications alone, 15-year survival was 98.9% for FL versus 98.1% for LL; a similar trend was observed at 20 years (98.9% vs 96.2%; p = 0.002). In multivariable analysis, LL use was independently associated with an increased hazard of revision (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.23; p = 0.026). Conclusion: LL use in THA is linked to a higher risk of mechanical complications and implant revision compared to FL. Although LL may provide enhanced stability in select cases, optimal outcomes depend on patient-specific factors and precise implant positioning, warranting a cautious approach to their widespread use.
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.