Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28669102›Full record

SynthesisMusculoskeletal surgery2018

Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature.

Luca Cavagnaro, Matteo Formica, Marco Basso, Andrea Zanirato, Stefano Divano, Lamberto Felli

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic conditions: a systematic review on current outcomes.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. [Medium- and long-term effectiveness of hip revision with SL-PLUS MIA stem in patients with Paprosky typeZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luca CavagnaroOrthopaedic Department, Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy. cavagnaro.luca@libero.it.
Matteo FormicaOrthopaedic Department, Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy.
Marco BassoOrthopaedic Department, Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy.
Andrea ZaniratoOrthopaedic Department, Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy.
Stefano DivanoOrthopaedic Department, Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy.
Lamberto FelliOrthopaedic Department, Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy.
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of primary cementless stems in femoral revision has gained popularity, but no clear consensus about the correct indication is still present. The aim of our systematic review is to: (1) summarize the available literature focused on the use of cementless primary stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); (2) evaluate whether the use of cementless primary stems could represent a feasible option in hip revision; (3) define the proper indication of this surgical approach. A systematic literature review was performed about the use of cementless primary stems in revision THA. The PRISMA 2009 checklist was considered to edit our review. A total of nine articles were included. The current evidence is primarily Level IV. A total of 439 patients (454 hips) underwent THA revision with primary cementless stem. Partial cementless porous coated stems were used in 246 hips (54.2%). The majority of patients were affected by type I or II Paprosky femoral defects. The mean stem-related survival rate is 95.6% ± 3.8 with a mean follow-up of 4.7 years ± 1.3. Poor standardization of methodological analysis was observed. Current literature shows lacking evidence about primary cementless stems in revision THA. Despite these limitations, we can affirm that primary cementless stems in femoral revision surgery represent a viable option in selected patients. The proper indication is a patient with femoral Paprosky defect types I or II, with low number of previous surgeries and a previous cementless stem.

Indexed as

Hip ProsthesisArthroplasty, Replacement, HipEvidence-Based MedicineFemurHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateProsthesis DesignReoperationRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeCementless stemHip revisionPrimary hip stemReviewTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID28669102
OpenAlexW2724230225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.