↓ Skip to main content

Does a Titanium‐coated Polyethylene Press‐fit Cup Give Reliable Midterm Results?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Does a Titanium‐coated Polyethylene Press‐fit Cup Give Reliable Midterm Results?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4556-7
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Uncemented acetabular components have demonstrated low revision rates and high patient satisfaction but with concerns regarding increased costs compared with monoblock cups. Some newer lower-cost uncemented monoblock options have become available in the last decade, but limited data are available on their performance. (1) Does an uncemented, titanium-backed all-polyethylene acetabular cup provide reliable fixation? (2) What is the frequency and what are the causes for revision with this cup? Between 2004 and 2008, we elected to use an uncemented, titanium-backed all-polyethylene acetabular cup in older patients with limited physical demands. We performed 615 hip replacements in 550 patients with greater than 5 years of clinical and radiographic followup. When patients who were dead (80 hips in 75 patients), lost to followup (98 hips in 93 patients), or revised (three hips in three patients) were excluded, there were 434 hips in 379 patients for comparison of the postoperative and 5-year radiographs. Two observers not involved in the index surgical procedures (NH, HS) assessed radiographs for signs of migration or loosening. Some degree of early movement sometimes is seen before cup stabilization; however, to be conservative, we defined cups with greater than 3° of change of position (even if they subsequently stabilized) as potentially at risk and report them separately. Revision surgery, time from the index procedure, and the reason for revision were recorded from the New Zealand Joint Registry. By 5 years there was a median change in inclination of 2° (range, 0°-13°; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-2.4; p < 0.001) and 2° of anteversion (range, 0°-11°; 95% CI, 2.0-2.4; p < 0.001). Although at last followup all cups appeared to have stabilized with no radiolucent lines or medial migration, 22% of the cups (94 of 434) had moved more than 3° and so were deemed to be potentially at risk. There were 11 revision procedures (of 429 hips; 2.5%) of which six were for recurrent dislocation, four for femoral fracture, and one for femoral loosening to give an overall all-cause revision rate for all components of 0.25 per 100 component years (95% CI, 0.13-0.43). No revisions were performed for acetabular loosening. The short- to medium-term results of this all-polyethylene monoblock cup demonstrated a low frequency of revision. However, 94 cups were identified as potentially at risk based on movement of > 3° before apparent stabilization. Although those patients seem to be doing well enough now, the current duration of followup may not be sufficient to know that these cups will be durable, because other ongrowth designs have demonstrated a high frequency of late failure after apparent early success. Level IV, therapeutic study.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 16%
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#10,634,169
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#2,665
of 9,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,392
of 443,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#46
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.