Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29042371›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Better early functional outcome after short stem total hip arthroplasty? A prospective blinded randomised controlled multicentre trial comparing the Collum Femoris Preserving stem with a Zweymuller straight cementless stem total hip replacement for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip.

Jakob van Oldenrijk, Vanessa A B Scholtes, Loes W A H van Beers, Carel H Geerdink, Bob B A M Niers, Wouter Runne, Mohit Bhandari, Rudolf W Poolman, CUSTOM trial research collaborative

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Jakob van OldenrijkDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Vanessa A B ScholtesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Loes W A H van BeersDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carel H GeerdinkDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, Ikazia Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bob B A M NiersDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, Ikazia Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wouter RunneDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mohit BhandariDepartment of Surgery, Mcmaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Rudolf W PoolmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
CUSTOM trial research collaborative

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrimary aim was to compare the functional results at 3 months and 2 years between short and conventional cementless stem total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aim was to determine the feasibility of a double-blind implant-related trial.

designA prospective blinded randomised controlled multicentre trial in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. All patients, research assistants, clinical assessors, investigators and data analysts were blinded to the type of prosthesis. POPULATION: 150 patients between 18 and 70 years with osteoarthritis of the hip, 75 in the short stem and 75 in the conventional stem group. Mean age: 60 years (SD 7).

interventionsthe Collum Femoris Preserving short stem versus the Zweymuller Alloclassic conventional stem.

main outcome measuresThe Dutch version of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Secondary outcomes measures: Harris Hip Score, the Physical Component Scale of the SF12, the Timed Up and Go test, Pain and the EQ-5D. Feasibility outcomes: continued blinding, protocol adherence and follow-up success rate.

resultsNo significant difference between the two groups. Mean HOOS total score in the short stem group increased 32.7 points from 36.6 (95% CI 32.9 to 40.2) preoperatively to 69.3 (95% CI 66.4 to 72.1) at 3 months follow-up. Mean HOOS total score in the conventional straight stem group increased 36.3 points from 37.1 (95% CI 33.9 to 40.3) preoperatively to 73.4 (95% CI 70.3 to 76.4) at 3 months follow-up. 91.2% of patients remained blinded at 2 years follow-up. Both protocol adherence and follow-up success rate were 98%.

conclusionsFunctional result at 3 months and 2 years after short stem THA is not superior to conventional cementless THA. There were more perioperative and postoperative complications in the short stem group. Direct comparison of two hip implants in a double-blinded randomised controlled trial is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1560.

Indexed as

AgedArthroplasty, Replacement, HipDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFemur NeckHip JointHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, HipPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionSeverity of Illness Indexblindinghiprandomised controlled trialtotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID29042371
PMCPMC5652481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.