ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2012
Femoral bone is preserved using cemented polished stems in young patients.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Allogeneic bone transplantation in hip revision surgery : Indications and potential for reconstruction].Der Orthopade · 2018Review
- Still no single gold standard for using cementless femoral stems routinely in total hip arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechniques that ensure femoral bone preservation after primary THA are important in younger patients who are likely to undergo revision surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We examined femoral stem survival, bone deficiency at revision arthroplasty, and radiographic bone loss in hips implanted with a cemented polished double-taper stem in a cohort of patients younger than 55 years.
methodsWe reviewed 197 hips (median patient age, 47 years; range, 16-54 years) after a minimum followup of 2 years (median, 7 years; range, 2-19 years) since primary THA. Clinically, we determined survival to major and minor stem revision and cases of bone deficiency requiring a long stem or impaction bone grafting or created by the need for femoral osteotomy at revision arthroplasty. Radiographically, we assessed stem loosening, femoral osteolysis, and femoral bone deficiency.
resultsStem survival to major revision for aseptic loosening was 100% at 13 years and for any reason was 97% (95% CI, 93-100%). At revision of seven stems, a long stem was used in one hip, a total femoral replacement in one hip and impaction bone grafting in one hip. No femoral osteotomies were required. Bone was preserved in four hips by cement-within-cement stem exchange. No stems were radiographically loose. Proximal osteolysis was present in 11% of femurs. Femoral bone deficiency was graded as Paprosky Type I (97%) or II (3%) and Endo-Klinik Grade 0 (79%) or I (21%).
conclusionsCemented polished taper stems have high survival at 13 years in young patients and enable femoral bone preservation for subsequent revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, 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.