ArticleArthroplasty today2016
Still no single gold standard for using cementless femoral stems routinely in total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2016. 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, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of impaction energy and bone quality on cementless femoral implant fixation and femoral periprosthetic fracture risk.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- Is osteoporosis a contraindication for cementless total hip arthroplasty in younger patients? A matched cohort analysis of 71,578 patients.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Perioperative and short-term outcomes of cemented versus cementless total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective propensity-matched analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- What features of stem increase the risk of intraoperative femoral fracture during cementless primary hip arthroplasty?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Differences in periprosthetic bone mineral density tendencies with Types 1 and 3C stems in bipolar hemiarthroplasty following hip fracture.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The short-term outcomes of cementless stem for hip arthroplasty in the elderly patients: comparison with patients < 65 years.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Gunshot Wound to the Hip Resulting in a Femoral Head and Acetabulum Fracture Treated With Open Reduction and Internal Fixation and Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2022Review
- Survivorship of the retained femoral component after revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Femoral Stem Cementation in Hip Arthroplasty: The Know-How of a "Lost" Art.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2021Review
- Cementing of the hip arthroplasty stem increases load-to-failure force: a cadaveric study.Acta orthopaedica · 2019Article
- Medical device surveillance with electronic health records.NPJ digital medicine · 2019Article
- Short to Midterm Follow-Up of Periprosthetic Bone Mineral Density after Total Hip Arthroplasty with the Ribbed Anatomic Stem.BioMed research international · 2019Article
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
backgroundThere is now a clear trend with increased usage of cementless femoral stems for all ages and most patients. As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed annually continues to increase with expanding indications for THA and demands for improved quality of life, so will the prevalence of THA in the elderly and aging populations. This is worrisome as the risk of complications with cementless femoral stems increases in elderly patients and those with poor bone quality. The purpose of this study is to analyze the available data from comparative studies to determine whether cementless femoral stems are overused and whether cemented stems warrant increased consideration.
methodsUsing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, searches were performed to find original studies comparing cementless and cemented femoral stems; large population registry studies and reports were also included.
resultsThis systematic review documents that older patients with cementless fixation increase the risk of revision, there is no clear fixation advantage in midaged patients, and younger patients fare better with cementless fixation. Complications after THA create burdens on the health care system and on patients.
conclusionsUsing evidence-based data should be better guidance in selecting the most reliable implants for THA. Although cementless femoral fixation for THA has evolved to the "new standard," it has not been proven to be the "gold standard" for all 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.