Long-term impact of physical activity and sports participation on implant integrity in resurfacing hip arthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) offer promising therapeutic solutions to physically active patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA). The impact of physical activity on long-term implant integrity in this population remains unknown. This systematic review compares the impact of physical activity and sports participation on implant integrity in THA versus RHA. METHODS: A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase (both via Ovid), Scopus, and CINAHL was conducted from inception to May 2023 following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Implant integrity was measured either radiographically, via serum metal ion levels or revision rates. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies with 4676 patients (THA: 3146; RHA: 1530) met the inclusion criteria. The median age at surgery was 60 years (range 49 to 86) in THA and 54 (range 49-61) years in RHA. At a median follow-up of 7.1 (range 4.8-13.1) years in THA and 10 (range 2.8-11.7) years in RHA, 3 studies out of 12, including 65.7% of the patients who underwent THA, and 2 studies out of 5, including 30.1% of the patients who underwent RHA, demonstrated that increased physical activity was associated with poor implant survivorship. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing THA or RHA should be counselled to participate in moderate physical activity and may benefit from avoiding sports that exert an excessive load on their implants. On average, the quality of the studies was moderate. The outcome measures used to quantify physical activity and implant integrity are heterogenous.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".