ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2026
Clinical impact of acetabular defect severity on hip center of rotation restoration in revision total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acetabular revision is a challenging procedure, especially in patients with large defects. This study aimed to evaluate how the severity of acetabular bone loss influences reconstruction of the center of rotation (COR) and how the COR influences clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: Patients who underwent acetabular revision at a tertiary hospital from January 2013 to December 2018 were included. Patients were grouped according to the Paprosky and Saleh classifications. To determine the COR, we applied the method described by Fessy. The Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario McMaster Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Short Form 12 (SF-12) were used to determine clinical outcomes and PROMs at a median of 41 months of follow-up. A total of 117 acetabular revisions were performed. The Paprosky classification was I for 54 acetabular defects (46.15 %); II for 36 acetabular defects (30.76 %); and III for 27 acetabular defects (23.07 %). The Saleh classification was as follows: I for 54 (46.15 %); II for 26 (22.22 %); III for 19 (16.23 %); IV for 16 (13.67 %) and V for 2 (1,7 %) acetabular defects. Results: The percentage of patients who achieved an appropriate COR was 60.1 % according to the Fessy method. This method showed a statistically significant association between the severity of the acetabular defect and the ability to accurately reconstruct the center of rotation. Similarly, no differences were observed in patients' functional outcomes (HHS, WOMAC, and SF-12 scores) based on whether the hip center of rotation was restored. Likewise, no differences were found in complication rates regardless of COR restoration or the degree of bone loss. Conclusion: These findings suggest that, in complex acetabular revisions, prioritizing stable fixation and bone preservation rather than perfect anatomic restoration of the center of rotation does not adversely affect functional outcomes.
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.