system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVE, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: Acetabulum, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Female, Hip Joint, Hip Prosthesis, Humans, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Male, Metal-on-Metal Joint Prostheses, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Prosthesis Design, Prosthesis Failure, Radiography, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult.
user
Does acetabular component thickness affect mid-term clinical results in hip resurfacing? Context: The benefits of using thin acetabular components for hip resurfacing have been shown in terms of bone conservation, but there currently are little data available in the literature addressing the mid-term clinical results of these devices. We aimed to determine whether thinner acetabular components altered mid-term postoperative clinical scores, complication rates, survivorship, radiographic appearance, and metal ion levels. Two hundred eighty-one patients with unilateral disease received a 5-mm thick acetabular shell and 223 received a 3.5-mm shell. The femoral component implanted in both groups was identical. We compared clinical scores, complication rates, survivorship, radiographic results, and ion levels between these two groups. UCLA hip scores were similar (pain, p = 0.0976; walking, p = 0.9571; function, p = 0.9316; activity, p = 0.2085). Complications were higher in the 5-mm group (6.4% versus 1.8%, p = 0.0431). Both groups were similar regarding survivorship (p = 0.3181), cup radiolucency at 5 years (p = 0.107), and metal ion levels (cobalt p = 0.404, chromium p = 0.250).
assistant
With comparable mid-term clinical results, there is no tangible reason to abstain from using the 3.5-mm acetabular component. Final Decision: no