ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Outcomes of revision from hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty: a matched comparative study with primary total hip arthroplasty at seven and a half years follow-up.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHip resurfacing arthroplasty(HRA) is an attractive alternative to total hip arthroplasty(THA) for different reasons: femoral bone stock preservation, large femoral head reducing the risk of dislocation, restoration of physiological hip biomechanics and absence of thigh pain. There is a paucity of data about evolution after revision of HRA to THA(RTH). The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes after RTH and compare them with matched patients undergoing primary THA on hip osteoarthritis.
methodsA retrospective case-control study was conducted including patients who underwent revision from HRA to THA with a minimum follow-up of three years. Among 5268 HRAs performed by a single surgeon, 22 required revision(0.42%). After exclusions and loss to follow-up, 18 patients were included. Each patient was matched with a control undergoing primary THA according to age(± 5 years) and preoperative Oxford Hip Score(OHS, ± 2 points). Functional outcomes were assessed using the OHS, Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score(MDP), UCLA activity scale, and Joint Forgotten Score(JFS-12). Perioperative data, complications, and implant survival were also analyzed.
resultsThe indications for revision were aseptic femoral loosening(54.5%), infection(18.1%), groin pain(13.6%), aseptic acetabular loosening(4.6%), aseptic bipolar loosening(4.6%) and periprosthetic acetabular fracture(4.6%). At a mean follow-up of 7.5 years for the RTH group and 6.1 years for the THA group, no significant differences were observed between groups in OHS (14 vs 13; p = 0.5), UCLA score (7.3 vs 6.6; p = 0.06), or JFS-12 (85 vs 92; p = 0.06). Surgical time and blood loss were significantly greater in the revision group(74 vs 33 min, p < 0.001; 374 vs 205 mL, p = 0.003). Patient satisfaction based on the PASS threshold was high in both groups(94% vs 100%, p = 0.233). Kaplan-Meier survivorship of RTH was 93% at ten years.
conclusionRevision of HRA to THA provides satisfactory functional outcomes and high patient satisfaction, comparable to primary THA when matched for age and preoperative function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42690344What 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.