ArticleInternational orthopaedics2015
Outcome of a modular tapered uncemented titanium femoral stem in revision hip arthroplasty.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Closed suction drainage has no benefits in revision total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.International orthopaedics · 2016Trial
- A Review of the Variations in Design Features in Diaphyseal Engaging Tapered Fluted Titanium Femoral Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2026Review
- Cumulative Risk for Periprosthetic Fracture and Operative Treatment Options After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Modular and Tapered Revision Device-A Consecutive Series of 117 Cases in a Mid-Term Duration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy Does Not Compromise Functional and Radiographic Outcomes of Femoral Stem Revisions with the Use of an Uncemented Modular Conical Stem.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Femoral revision in total hip arthroplasty using a cementless modular stem: clinical and radiological results with a 8-year follow-up.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- The Early- to Mid-term Outcome of Novel Cementless Modular Femoral Stem in East Asian Patients.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
- Comparable outcomes of in-cement revision and uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture at 5 years.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Article
- Medium Term Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Using a Modular Tapered Hip Revision Implant.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- Risk factors for subsidence of modular fluted tapered stem implanted by using transfemoral Wagner approach during revision hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Promising results of revision total hip arthroplasty using a hexagonal, modular, tapered stem in cases of aseptic loosening.PloS one · 2020Article
- Long-term survivorship of a monoblock long cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Anchoring of a Kinked Uncemented Femoral Stem after Preparation with a Straight or a Kinked Reamer.Orthopaedic surgery · 2019Article
- Review
- Femoral revision surgery using a fully hydroxyapatite-coated stem: a cohort study of twenty two to twenty seven years.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- Mid-term Results of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Modular Cementless Femoral Stems.Hip & pelvis · 2015Article
- Fixation pattern of conical and cylindrical modular revision hip stems in different size bone defects.International orthopaedics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRevision hip arthroplasty using a modular tapered design gives the possibility for customising the prostheses to the individual anatomy intra-operatively. The success of this kind of surgery is still controversial due to the relative lack of medium- to long-term follow-up. Therefore we analysed the clinical and radiological outcome of the modular MRP-TITAN stem with diaphyseal fixation in revision hip surgery.
methodsIn this retrospective study we included 136 consecutive patients with MRP-TITAN stem implanted during revision hip arthroplasty. The average follow-up was 55 months. For clinical evaluation we used the Harris Hip Score and the Merle d'Aubigné and Postel score. The health-related quality of life was determined with the visual analogue pain scale.
resultsThe surgeries were performed 109 months after primary total hip arthroplasty on average. The main indications for the MRP-TITAN revision stem were aseptic loosening, infection, and periprosthetic fracture. In the clinical outcome, patients achieved 75.1 points in the Harris Hip Score and 14.4 points in the Merle d'Aubigné and Postel Score. Mean level of persisting pain was 0.7 (VAS). The overall survival of the MRP stem in revision hip arthroplasty revealed 85.6% survival at 9.75 years' follow-up with a repeat revision rate of 6.8%.
conclusionsPerforming revision hip arthroplasty using the MRP-TITAN stem revealed a good clinical outcome. There is a tendency for better results in comparison with the information given in literature for cementless modular revision stems including a lower rate in re-revisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25690924What 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.