Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Hybrid versus cemented implants for total hip replacement: a randomised feasibility study with embedded qualitative research.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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.
- Implementation of hip replacement surgery recommendations: a qualitative study of orthopaedic surgeons' perspectives.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hybrid versus cemented implants for total hip replacement (THR). Two-arm pragmatic randomised feasibility trial with embedded qualitative semi-structured interviews.
methodsPerformed at two NHS orthopaedic hospitals for the randomised feasibility trial; two further sites for qualitative interviews. 40 adults undergoing THR randomised to receive either cemented (cemented cup and stem) or hybrid (uncemented cup and cemented stem) THR. Qualitative study: 27 patients invited to participate in the trial; 16 consultant orthopaedic surgeons; 4 healthcare professionals involved in trial conduct. Primary outcomes: recruitment rate. Secondary outcomes related to feasibility and acceptability assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods.
resultsFebruary- July 2021: 63 patients were screened and 40 (63%) randomised on a 1:1 allocation which was 100% of the adjusted recruitment target. Four participants were withdrawn due to surgery delays and five of 36 participants did not receive their allocated treatment. No adverse events of special interest and no serious adverse device effects were reported. Data completeness and follow-up were high. An indicative cost-utility analysis was performed, demonstrating feasibility for an RCT. Qualitative findings suggested that trial participation was acceptable to patients if they believed that their well-being would not be compromised. Surgeons’ recommendations regarding trial participation seemed influential. Surgeons seemed willing to recruit patients to the trial if they were in equipoise and perceived no detriment to patients’ outcomes following random allocation.
conclusionsThis study has demonstrated that an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hybrid vs cemented implants for THR is feasible and appears acceptable to patients where their surgeons support trial participation. It is important for surgeons to believe trial participation will not jeopardize patient outcomes to enable surgeons to support the trial.
trial registrationUK Clinical Study Registry ISRCTN11097021 date of registration 19/2/2021.
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.