ReviewAdvances in orthopedics2026
Comparative Outcomes of Resurfacing vs Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Advances in orthopedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Outcomes of Resurfacing vs Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in orthopedics · 2026Review
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: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) are widely used for treating hip joint disorders. While THA is the gold standard for hip replacement, RHA is increasingly used in younger, active patients due to bone preservation. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare functional outcomes, metal ions, complications, revision rates, survivorship and satisfaction between THA and RHA. Methods: A systematic search of EMBASE, Cochrane Library and PubMed was conducted (inception-August 2024) to identify primary research articles for THA and RHA. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. A meta-analysis using MATLAB applied a random-effects model to calculate pooled effect sizes for functional scores, revision rates, complications and metal ions. Results: Initial search collated 2265 studies, of which 11 met inclusion criteria (2013-2021). Most frequently reported outcomes included complications, revision rates and UCLA. RHA showed better UCLA, HHS and chromium levels, while THA had better WOMAC and cobalt levels, although differences were nonsignificant. Total complications were higher with THA, though nonsignificant. The most common complications were aseptic loosening and dislocation for RHA and THA, respectively. Notably, when the dislocation rate was analysed in isolation, a statistically significant higher dislocation rate was demonstrated with THA. Revision rates were higher for THA, and survivorship was 85.5% compared to 89.5% (RHA), however, with no statistical difference. Statistically significant higher preference for RHA (66.1%) was reported in one study. Satisfaction was greater for RHA (87.8% vs 83.9%) and more patients perceived their hip as natural. One study reported significantly higher quality of life with THA. Conclusion: Patient-reported outcomes, metal ions, complications, revision rates and survivorship were broadly similar between RHA and THA. However, dislocations were more frequent with THA, a key consideration when treating athletic patients. Greater satisfaction and preference with RHA suggest that it may be preferable when outcomes are otherwise comparable.Christoforos Demosthenous and Christos Pittalis are joined-first authors.
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.