ReviewArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Mix and match strategies in revision total hip arthroplasty: a review of techniques and outcomes.
Review in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review evaluates the clinical indications, surgical rationale, and outcomes of six targeted component-retention strategies in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) designed to reduce operative morbidity and preserve host bone stock.
methodsThis is a narrative review. A structured but non-systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus was used to identify contemporary clinical cohorts, joint registry data, and biomechanical analyses, with the evidence organised sequentially across acetabular and femoral subsites.
resultsAcetabular retention of stable metal-on-metal shells with dual-mobility bearings minimizes surgical trauma and yields exceptionally low dislocation rates (0% to 4%). Cementing highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) or dual-mobility liners into secure or revision cups successfully decouples biological fixation from alignment, ensuring high mid-term survivorship. On the femoral side, trunnion adapter sleeves protect the head-neck junction during isolated bearing exchanges, demonstrating reliable 10-year survivorship (85%). For unavoidable stem extractions with sound cement mantles, cement-in-cement revision offers a rapid pathway; utilizing high-fatigue-resistant cobalt-chromium alloys instead of stainless steel structurally mitigates the rare risk of cantilever stem fracture. Lastly, for uncontained bone loss or profound osteopenia, extended long cemented stems and allograft-stem composites bypass major defects to provide immediate biological and mechanical rigidity.
conclusionIn appropriately selected patients, targeted component retention appears to offer a bone-preserving alternative to wholesale hardware explantation, although the supporting evidence is predominantly observational.
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.