ArticleBone & joint open2026
Contraindications of femoral implants in primary total hip arthroplasty : legal implications and strategies for orthopaedic surgeons.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Litigation related to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a growing concern. Manufacturer-specified contraindications for femoral implants may influence legal outcomes, particularly when common patient characteristics such as obesity are listed. This study identified manufacturer-listed contraindications for femoral implants used in primary THA and evaluated their medicolegal implications within the frameworks of medical negligence and informed consent law in England and Wales. Methods: The 11 most commonly used femoral implants were identified from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. For each implant, manufacturer surgical technique guides were reviewed to extract contraindications, relative contraindications, and warnings. A structured medicolegal analysis was conducted within the frameworks of medical negligence and informed consent law, drawing on landmark case law and peer-reviewed medicolegal scholarship, supplemented by consultation with legal professionals who specialize in orthopaedic device litigation. Results: Two implants cited obesity or morbid obesity as a contraindication; four reported obesity as a warning. Nine implants listed inadequate bone quality as a contraindication, and two as a relative contraindication. Neuromuscular disease was contraindicated in nine implants, and a relative contraindication in two. Infection was contraindicated in all eleven implants. Vascular deficiency was a contraindication in six implants, and a relative contraindication in two. Deficient musculature was contraindicated in five implants and a relative contraindication in two. Conclusion: Many manufacturer-listed contraindications correspond to clinical characteristics commonly found in THA patients. These contraindications do not preclude implant use when supported by evidence and sound clinical judgement, but carry significant medicolegal implications under negligence and informed consent law. Once a manufacturer has communicated a contraindication, medicolegal scrutiny may shift to the surgeon's decision-making under two distinct frameworks, namely the standard of care and informed consent. Surgeons should know their implant-specific contraindications, ensure decisions are evidence-based and documented, and explicitly disclose elevated risks to patients.
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.