ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2012
Stable fixation of short-stem femoral implants in patients 70 years and older.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Short-stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies.Acta orthopaedica · 2014Pooled it
- Is Collum Femoris Preserving Stem (CFP) an Epiphyseal-Stabilized Prosthesis? A Long-Term Single-Center Series Follow Up of 705 Cases.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Short Stem vs. Standard Stem in Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Perioperative Prospective Invasiveness Study with Serum Markers.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Influence of stem length on sagittal alignment in total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between short and standard stems.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Does femoral stem choice influence fracture type or incidence for direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Article
- Comparison of Femoral Bone Mineral Density Changes around 3 Common Designs of Cementless Stems after Total Hip Arthroplasty-A Retrospective Cohort Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Peri-prosthetic bone remodeling of hydroxyapatite-coated compaction short stem was not affected by stem alignment.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Downsizing in total hip arthroplasty. A short stem as a revision implant.Der Orthopade · 2022Article
- Ultra-Short Bone Conserving Cementless Femoral Stem.Hip & pelvis · 2021Review
- Short versus conventional stem in cementless total hip arthroplasty : An evidence-based approach with registry data of mid-term survival.Der Orthopade · 2021Article
- Primary total hip arthroplasty using a short bone-conserving stem in young adult osteoporotic patients with Dorr type C femoral bone.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- Periprosthetic femoral fracture as cause of early revision after short stem hip arthroplasty-a multicentric analysis.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- High incidence of early subtrochanteric lateral cortical atrophy after hip arthroplasty using bone-conserving short stem.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- Two- to 4-Year Followup of a Short Stem THA Construct: Excellent Fixation, Thigh Pain a Concern.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- A comparison of a short versus a conventional femoral cementless stem in total hip arthroplasty in patients 70 years and older.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2016Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Biomechanical Behaviour of Two Cementless Short Stems for Hip Replacement: Linea Anatomic and Minihip.PloS one · 2016Article
- Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients.Advances in orthopedics · 2015Article
- Does stem design influence component positioning in total hip arthroplasty using a minimal invasive posterolateral approach?International orthopaedics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimitations of conventional uncemented femoral stems persist, including proximal-distal mismatch, nonideal load transfer, loss of bone, and difficulties with minimally invasive surgery. Metaphyseal-engaging short-stem implants have been designed to address these issues in THA. While these devices have been studied in younger patients, it is unclear whether they offer advantages in older patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether the stability and bony ingrowth of an off-the-shelf short stem in patients 70 years and older were similar to those achieved in patients younger than 70 years at 2-year followup. Furthermore, we asked whether pain and function scores were affected by age, bone quality, or varus alignment. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 60 patients (65 hips) 70 years and older (mean, 75 years; range, 70-86 years) treated with an uncemented short stem (range, 90-105 mm). We compared radiographic alignment, stability, and bony ingrowth, as well as Harris hip scores and WOMAC pain scores, to a cohort of 89 patients (91 hips) younger than 70 years. Minimum followup was 24 months (mean, 35 months; range, 24-60 months).
resultsRadiographs showed proximal bony ingrowth and stable fixation of all implants. Average Harris hip score at last followup was 88 (range, 70-100) for the 70 years and older cohort and 93 (range, 70-100) for younger than 70 years cohort; no patients reported thigh pain. Postoperative WOMAC scores averaged 6 (range, 0-43) and 5 (range, 0-25), respectively.
conclusionsShort-stem implants provide solid, dependable fixation in osteoporotic bone at minimum 2-year followup, while meeting some of the limitations in conventional primary THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.