ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2019
Anchoring of a Kinked Uncemented Femoral Stem after Preparation with a Straight or a Kinked Reamer.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimized reamer geometry for controlled reaming of the proximal femur.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate a stem-adjusted preparation of the femur with a kinked reamer and to determine whether this approach results in higher primary stability of a kinked stem than straight reaming of the intramedullary canal.
methodsTen cementless stems with a kinked design were implanted in synthetic femurs after preparation of the femoral canal with 2 different reamer designs (straight reaming [SR] group vs kinked reaming [KR] group). The specimens were analyzed using CT to determine the anchoring length and examined with a mechanical testing system to establish their axial stiffness, torsional stiffness, and migration distance after 10 000 gait cycles.
resultsThe stem migration distances did not differ significantly between the groups (SR group 0.51 ± 0.16 mm vs KR group 0.36 ± 0.03 mm, P = 0.095). Only for the SR group, a correlation was found between the completely conical anchorage length and absolute stem migration (P < 0.05, R = 0.89). Regarding the torsional stiffness, no differences were observed between the study groups (SR group 6.48 ± 0.17 Nm/° vs KR group 6.52 ± 0.25 Nm/°, P = 0.398). In the KR group, significantly higher axial stiffness values were measured than in the SR group (SR group 1.68 ± 0.14 kN/mm vs KR group 2.09 ± 0.13 kN/mm, P = 0.008).
conclusionsThe implantation of a kinked stem after kinked conical intramedullary preparation of the proximal femur showed equivalent results regarding anchoring length, stem migration, and torsional stiffness to those for straight conical reaming. The specimens with kinked reaming showed significantly higher axial stiffness values.
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.