ArticleJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2026
Acetabular Bone Preservation in H1 Ceramic Hip Resurfacing: A Comparison With A Conventional Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the volume of acetabular bone resection between an anatomically designed cementless ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing arthroplasty (H1HR) and metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing; BHR). We hypothesized that the anatomical design of the H1 cup would reduce the need for medialization to avoid rim overhang, thereby preserving acetabular bone stock. A retrospective three-dimensional simulation study was performed in 12 hips with osteoarthritis and femoral head size ≥ 48 mm. H1HR and BHR were virtually implanted using 3D planning software to minimize the risk of groin pain. The primary outcome was the volume of acetabular bone resection. Secondary outcomes included the position of the cup relative to the native hip centre and the cup non-coverage ratio. H1 cups required a mean volume of acetabular bone resection of 11 cm
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.