Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41632885›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2026

Association of acetabular implants with sensitive radiographic surveillance on revision rates: a study based on 5 hip arthroplasty registries.

Chan Hee Cho, John M Abrahams, Deepti K Sharma, Lucian B Solomon, Christopher J Wall, Bart G Pijls, Stuart A Callary

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chan Hee ChoCentre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. chanhee.cho@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4598-451X
John M AbrahamsCentre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA; Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Deepti K SharmaCentre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA; Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lucian B SolomonCentre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA; Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Christopher J WallAustralian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2446-5326
Bart G Pijls *Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5351-5057
Stuart A Callary *Centre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA; Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2892-5238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeNational joint arthroplasty registries are the gold standard for monitoring long-term acetabular implant survivorship. Sensitive radiographic surveillance (SRS) has been recommended as a complementary surveillance approach, but no study has investigated whether implants introduced with no sensitive radiographic surveillance (NSRS) are associated with higher revision rates. Therefore, we investigated whether acetabular implants with NSRS are associated with higher revision rates than those with SRS.

methodsAcetabular implants with SRS were defined as those with published evidence of stability measurements assessed using either radiostereometric analysis or "Ein Bild Röntgen Analyse." Evidence of SRS of acetabular implant designs was sourced from 2 literature reviews. A mixed-effects model was used to pool and compare the revision rate of acetabular implants with SRS and NSRS at 5 and 10 years from 5 arthroplasty registries.

resultsThere were 29 unique acetabular implant designs with SRS and 86 designs with NSRS that had matching 5- and 10-year revision rates. At 5 years, there was a mean difference of 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-1.1) in mean all-cause revision rates favoring implants with SRS. Mean all-cause revision rates at 10 years for acetabular implants with SRS and NSRS were 5.2% (CI 4.9-5.5) and 7.4% (CI 7.0-7.9) respectively, with a mean difference of 1.8% (CI 1.2-2.3) favoring implants with SRS.

conclusionAcetabular implants with NSRS were associated with 1.8% higher pooled revision rates than those with SRS at 10 years, which represents a relative increase in acetabular revision burden of approximately 36%.

Indexed as

AcetabulumArthroplasty, Replacement, HipHip ProsthesisReoperationFemaleHumansProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureRadiographyRadiostereometric AnalysisRegistries

Identifiers

PMID41632885
PMCPMC12869144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.