ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Retrospective Analysis of Pseudotumor of the Hip: Clinical Management and Outcomes.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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.
- Retrospective Analysis of Pseudotumor of the Hip: Clinical Management and Outcomes.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
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
backgroundManagement of pseudotumors following hip arthroplasty remains a subject of debate. This study aims to assess implant survival in relation to clinical variables and compares the outcomes of one-stage and two-stage revision surgeries.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 55 cases of pseudotumor surgically treated between 2004 and 2023 at a single tertiary care center. Patients underwent either one-stage (44%) or two-stage (29%) revision procedures. The following clinical and demographical information were collected: gender, age at diagnosis, body mass index (BMI) (calculated by dividing the patients' weight by their height squared solid mass), the American Society of Anaesthesiologist values (ASA), a diagnosis of pseudotumor identified by radiology and histological examination, time of diagnosis, surgery treatment, and follow-up. Implant and patient survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsThe mean follow-up was up to 67 months (95% CI 43.43-95.29), and the mean age at diagnosis was 56 years (95% CI 53-59). Revision strategy correlated with CRP levels (p = 0.013) and tumor size (p = 0.003). Ten complications (18%) occurred at a mean of 10 months, including wound issues (1), dislocations (4), abductor dysfunctions (4), and deep infection (1). Implant failure occurred in 3 cases (5%). Implant survival was 92% at 5 years (95% CI 0.68-0.97) and 80% at 10 years (95% CI 0.44-0.94). Fourteen patients died by final follow-up; 2 deaths (14%) were surgery related. Overall patient survival was 83% at 5 years (95% CI 0.68-0.92) and 67% at 10 years (95% CI 0.48-0.80). Postoperative Harris Hip Score (n = 34) averaged 73.2 (95% CI 68.6-77.8).
conclusionsSurgery is recommended for pseudotumor, although the optimal approach remains argued. Our data support a two-stage revision for large pseudotumors with elevated inflammatory markers. Revision surgery provides good function and low implant failure risk, but patient mortality remains significant due to fragility.
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.