ReviewMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2026
Success and Safety of Isolated Cup Revision Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.
Review in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Isolated acetabular revision arthroplasty is increasingly performed as the number of primary total hip arthroplasties rises and implant longevity is challenged. Although this procedure avoids the morbidity associated with full-component revision, concerns remain regarding instability, osteolysis, and long-term implant survival. Previous reviews have not specifically synthesized clinical, radiological, and functional results of isolated acetabular revision based on implant type, surgical approach, and patient-related factors. The current review intends to summarize the clinical, radiological, and functional results of isolated acetabular revision surgeries while focusing on the effectiveness of different surgical approaches, implant types, and patient factors used to improve postoperative results. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted from inception to January 2025. The entire review process adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction. Eligibility criteria included adult patients undergoing isolated acetabular revision with a well-fixed femoral stem. Risk of bias was evaluated using RoB-2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for observational studies. Narrative synthesis was performed to integrate clinical, radiological, and survival outcomes. Results: The initial search yielded 1154 records. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Functional outcomes improved significantly (HHS increased from 48-50 to 86-88 across studies). Dislocation rates ranged from 0-7%, with lower rates in dual-mobility cups. Implant survival was 95-98% at 10-15 years. Radiological evaluation demonstrated high rates of osteointegration and low rates of cup loosening among contemporary cementless implants. Long-term survival ranged from 95% to 98% at 10-15 years. Heterogeneity in study design, surgical approach, and implant type was observed, and the overall risk of bias was moderate. Conclusion: Isolated acetabular revision arthroplasty provides significant functional improvement, reliable radiographic outcomes, and high implant survival when the femoral stem is stable. Modern cementless and dual-mobility components appear to reduce instability and enhance osteointegration. Further well-designed prospective studies with standardized outcome reporting are needed to refine indications and optimize long-term results.
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.