ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Extra-long femoral heads as a surrogate marker for revision risk in primary total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe effect of femoral head length on implant survival in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been little studied so far. Longer heads may increase taper corrosion and reflect intraoperative complexity. This study evaluated factors associated with the use of extra-long heads (≥ XL) and their impact on implant survival.
methodsWe analyzed 562,001 primary THA from the German Arthroplasty Registry. Subgroup analyses were performed by hospital annual primary THA volume (≤ 250, 251–500, ≥ 501), surgical indication (primary osteoarthritis [OA] vs. femoral neck fracture [FNF]), and fixation method (cemented vs. cementless). Logistic regression identified factors associated with ≥ XL head use, and implant survival was compared between head lengths using Kaplan–Meier analysis in both subgroups and the overall cohort.
resultsThe use of ≥ XL femoral heads decreased with increasing hospital volume (5.4% low, 4.5% medium, 3.0% high; p < 0.001). Rates were higher in FNF than OA across all volumes (8.1% vs. 4.7% in low-volume hospitals; 5.0% vs. 2.7% in high-volume hospitals). Cemented fixation was independently associated with higher odds of ≥ XL head use (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09–1.18, p < 0.001), with additional predictors including male sex (OR 2.13, 95% CI 2.06–2.19), BMI ≥ 40 (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.77–2.12), higher Elixhauser comorbidity score (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04–1.15), and surgery for FNF (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.83–2.02), while treatment at high-volume hospitals was associated with lower odds (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.54–0.58). Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed higher cumulative revision rates with ≥ XL heads (7.2% vs. 4.5% at 9 years), consistent across all subgroups.
conclusionThe use of femoral heads ≥ XL was independently associated with lower hospital THA volume, femoral neck fracture, cemented fixation, male sex, higher BMI, and greater comorbidity burden. Their implantation was also linked to higher revision rates, suggesting that ≥ XL heads may serve as a surrogate marker for increased revision risk after primary THA.
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.