ArticleDer Orthopade2014
[Cement-free and cemented Excia hip shaft prosthesis: comparison of intermediate term results].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The history of the development of the regular straight stem in hip arthroplasty.EFORT open reviews · 2023Review
- Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system.EFORT open reviews · 2020Review
- Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Contact Pattern between the Cortical Bone and Femoral Prosthesis after Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty.Advances in orthopedics · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of the studyFor fixation of total hip prostheses, cemented and cement-free techniques are available. Normally, anchoring techniques and the definitive endoprosthesis model are determined preoperatively based on the available information, such as the quality of bone. Some newer endoprosthesis models utilize the same instruments for both implantation techniques. In this way it is possible to decide on the final anchoring technique intraoperatively. Because such a combined endoprosthesis system has been used in our clinic for 10 years, we were interested in the clinical results at the intermediate stage. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn a prospective, non-randomized study 105 pairs from a continuing series were formed from 105 cases treated with cement-free prostheses and the latest cemented shaft implants from the same year. In this way a total of 210 hip shaft endoprostheses from the years 2002 to 2006 were included in the study. After an average time period of 6.3 years (range 4.5-8.2 years) the patients were recalled for a follow-up examination. The clinical results, early and late complications were analyzed. The immediately postoperative X-ray images and those from the follow-up examination were evaluated by an independent external expert with respect to primary positioning, migration and any signs of loosening.
resultsAt the follow-up examination at an average of 6.3 years the quota was 73%. The indications for cement-free/cemented total hip endoprosthesis were: primary arthritis 87%/98%, secondary arthritis 10%/2% and others 3%/0%. At the time of the last follow-up examination 4 and 14 patients, respectively, had died. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was given as 0.72/0.78. The Harris hip score improved from 54/48 to 93/90 points. The implant-related survival rate was 99.5%. Due to a periprosthetic fracture one of the cemented shafts had to be removed. Luxation occurred in 3/2 cases, respectively, of which 4 could be conservatively treated. In one cement-free case a head elongation and a change to an inlay with an anti-luxation shoulder was necessary. A fracture of the trochanter major was conservatively treated and an intraoperative shaft fissure was stabilized with wire cerclage and titan banding. The radiological evaluation showed no implant loosening or statistically significant differences in the shaft positioning. DISCUSSION: Short and intermediate clinical and radiological results showed no differences in patients of similar average age in the sixth decade of life. The significant improvements in the Harris hip score and the range of movement could be confirmed in the intermediate term and are comparable to other current implants. It can be concluded that an intraoperative decision on the fixation technique based on the macroscopically visible bone quality supports the reliably good results of both methods.
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.