ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Bone-Sparing Hip Arthroplasty in Young and Active Patients: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone stock preservation in young and active patients undergoing hip arthroplasty is the principal determinant of reconstructive complexity at revision, an event that national registry data identify as more likely for most young individuals, with a lifetime revision risk up to 35%. Standard diaphyseal stems, despite their proven longevity in elderly cohorts, produce predictable proximal stress shielding that depletes the metaphyseal envelope over time, narrowing the surgical options available at every subsequent intervention. Two femoral strategies have evolved in response: hip resurfacing arthroplasty and short-stem total hip arthroplasty. Each addresses proximal bone loss through distinct biomechanical principles and with different patient selection criteria, complication profiles and revision implications. Although acetabular bone preservation has been comparatively less studied in the literature, it remains clinically relevant because it may affect bone stock quality at the time of revision. We synthesize the available evidence on both femoral and acetabular bone-sparing strategies, with respect to patient selection, surgical technique, survivorship, patient-reported outcomes, complications and revision implications. Our goal is to provide a structured clinical reference for implant selection in this demanding patient population. A comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar (October 2000-May 2026) and 99 peer-reviewed studies were included and synthesized using a structured narrative approach.
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.