ArticleInternational orthopaedics2015
Fixation pattern of conical and cylindrical modular revision hip stems in different size bone defects.
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 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.
- Comparison of cylindrical and tapered stem designs for femoral revision hip arthroplasty.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Periprosthetic fractures and complicated arthroplasties.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
purposeFemoral defects often make it difficult to achieve sufficient fixation of the stem during revision surgery. No clinical studies comparing modular stems are available and differentiated recommendations are rare. The aim of this study was to compare the fixation of different revision stems in an experimental and standardised manner.
methodsSegmental AAOS type I and III defects were reproduced in four femur pairs and two modular stems of different shape (cylindrical and conical) were implanted. Interfacial stem-bone movements were measured under axial torque application to analyze the stem fixation depending on defect extension.
resultsBoth stems showed adequate fixation in AAOS type I defect. The defect extension significantly reduced the fixation of both implants. The fixation pattern changed significantly for the cylindrical-shaped stem but was maintained for the conical-shaped stem.
conclusionsShape as well as the extension of femoral defect have an impact on primary fixation. A type I defect seems to be bridgeable for both stems albeit in a different way. In contrast, stem-demanding activities during the healing phase have to be avoided for the conical-shaped stem in a type III defect, whereas the cylindrical-shaped stem has already ceased to be sufficiently stable in this case.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26156721What 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.