ArticleBone & joint open2026
Impact of offset polyethylene liners on acetabular component loosening : an Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry-based analysis.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
Aims: Restoring native hip biomechanics is essential for the long-term success of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Lateralized (offset) acetabular liners were developed to increase global offset and improve soft-tissue tension, but their effect on implant fixation and revision risk remains uncertain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR). All primary conventional THAs for osteoarthritis performed between 2012 and 2022 using uncemented acetabular components with highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liners were included. Procedures were categorized as lateralized liners (LL) or standard liners (SL). The primary outcome was revision for any reason; secondary outcomes included revision for loosening and acetabular loosening. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare groups after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and surgical approach. Results: A total of 68,435 primary THAs were analyzed, including 1,182 LL and 67,253 SL procedures. Revision for any reason occurred in 3.21% of LL and 2.44% of SL cases. At nine-year follow-up, CPR was 4.1% (95% CI 2.8 to 6.0) for LL and 3.5% (95% CI 3.2 to 3.7) for SL. The adjusted hazard ratio for revision was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, p = 0.386), indicating no significant difference between groups. Revision for acetabular loosening was rare and comparable (0.17% LL vs 0.12% SL). Conclusion: In this large registry-based study, lateralized liners did not increase the risk of revision or loosening compared with standard liners. Despite being more frequently used in younger, male patients and in association with the posterior approach, lateralized liners demonstrated equivalent mid-term survivorship, supporting their safe use to optimize hip biomechanics without compromising implant fixation.
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.