Article Text

PDF
Republished research
Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: systematic review of literature
  1. F Kynaston-Pearson1,
  2. A M Ashmore2,
  3. T T Malak2,
  4. I Rombach2,
  5. A Taylor2,
  6. D Beard2,
  7. N K Arden2,3,
  8. A Price2,
  9. D Prieto-Alhambra2,
  10. A Judge2,3,
  11. A J Carr2,
  12. S Glyn-Jones2
  1. 1University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, The Old Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK
  2. 2Oxford NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7FF, UK
  3. 3MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
  1. Correspondence to : S Glyn-Jones, Botnar Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK; sion.glyn-jones{at}ndorms.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION To what extent are prostheses with no readily available evidence to support their use being implanted in primary total hip arthroplasty?

SUMMARY ANSWER A quarter of prostheses available to orthopaedic surgeons in England and Wales have no readily available evidence of clinical effectiveness to support their use.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS The high failure rate of some metal-on-metal hip replacements has highlighted the need for an adequate evidence base for orthopaedic implants. A considerable number of prostheses available to the surgeon for use in primary total hip arthroplasty in the UK have no available evidence of clinical effectiveness to support their use.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.