ArticleInternational orthopaedics2013
Behaviour of the ultra-short anatomic cementless femoral stem in young and elderly patients.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrashort versus Conventional Anatomic Cementless Femoral Stems in the Same Patients Younger Than 55 Years.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2016Trial
- Comparison of mid-term clinical and radiological results of short and conventional femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Successful reconstruction of natural femoral anteversion using a short femoral stem in total hip arthroplasty surgery.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
- Short Stem for Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) - Overview, Patient Selection and Perspectives by Using the MethaOrthopedic research and reviews · 2022Review
- Ultra-Short Bone Conserving Cementless Femoral Stem.Hip & pelvis · 2021Review
- Mid-term subsidence and periprosthetic radiolucency of the AMIStem: a 5-year EBRA-FCA analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- Eighteen-Year Results of Cementless THA with Alumina-on-HXLPE Bearings in Patients <30 Years Old: A Concise Follow-up of a Previous Report.The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2020Article
- Cementless short-stem total hip arthroplasty in the elderly patient - is it a safe option?: a prospective multicentre observational study.BMC geriatrics · 2019Observational
- 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
- Outcome of a modular tapered uncemented titanium femoral stem in revision hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2015Article
- Outcome of an ultrashort metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless stem in highly active obese and non-obese patients.International orthopaedics · 2015Article
- Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients.Advances in orthopedics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe question arises as to whether it is possible to obtain rigid fixation of the ultra-short metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless stem without diaphyseal fixation in the elderly as well as younger patients. We investigated whether ultra-short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless femoral stem would provide similar functional improvements in the younger and elderly patients, radiographically secure implant fixation would be achieved in both groups, the bone content would be preserved in both groups, and complication rates would be similar in both groups.
methodsA total of 100 patients (114 hips) in the younger patient group and 100 patients (112 hips) in the elderly patient group were included in the study. Their mean age was 43.9 ± 6.11 years (range, 31-65 years) in the younger patient group and 78.9 ± 12.1 years (range, 66-91 years) in the elderly patient group. The mean duration of follow-up was 7.5 years (range, six to nine years) in the younger patient group and 7.6 years (range, six to nine years) in the elderly patient group.
resultsThe mean postoperative Harris hip scores (95 points versus 91 points), WOMAC scores (11 points versus 15 points), thigh pain (none in either group), UCLA activity scores (6.5 points versus 4.5 points), and radiographic results were not significantly different between the two groups. No hip in either group had an aseptic loosening. No hip in either group had clicking or squeaking sounds or ceramic fractures.
conclusionThe cementless ultra-short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless femoral component provides stable fixation without any need of diaphyseal fixation in both younger and elderly patients. Despite the concern, the poor bone quality in elderly patients did not compromise the stability, and osseointegration of this ultra-short, anatomic cementless femoral stem was achieved in all elderly patients.
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.