ArticleJB & JS open access
Powered Versus Manual Acetabular Component Extraction in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Analysis of 98 Cases.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision total hip arthroplasty (R-THA) often requires removal of well-fixed acetabular components, where minimizing bone loss and operative time are critical. While manual extraction tools have been the traditional approach, powered systems device may improve efficiency, yet comparative clinical data remain limited. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 98 R-THAs (32 powered, 66 manual) from an institutional database (2021-2024). Patient demographics, operative characteristics, extraction times, and healthcare utilization outcomes (length of stay [LOS], discharge disposition, 90-day readmission, 90-day complications, and 1-year reoperations) were analyzed using nonparametric and categorical statistical tests. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Cup sizes removed and reimplanted were largely comparable between groups, indicating minimal differences in bone preservation. Time to cup removal was significantly shorter with the powered device, with 82% completed in ≤10 minutes and none exceeding 20 minutes, compared with the manual group where 58% required 5 to 10 minutes, 33% required 10 to 20 minutes, and 8% exceeded 20 minutes (p < 0.001). Healthcare utilization metrics, including LOS ≥3 days (50.0% vs. 56.4%, p = 1.000), nonhome discharge (25.0% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.572), 90-day readmission (21.9% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.054), 1-year reoperation (6.3% vs. 7.6%, p = 1.000), and 90-day complications (21.9% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.457), did not differ significantly. Conclusion: The use of the powered acetabular extraction system was associated with significantly reduced extraction times compared with a manual extraction device in R-THA. One-year reoperation rates were comparable, as were complication/readmission rates and replacement cup sizes. These findings highlight the efficiency benefits of powered explantation as well as its safety. Level of evidence: Level III (Retrospective comparative cohort study). See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.