ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2020
Revision hip arthroplasty with a rectangular tapered cementless stem: a retrospective study of the SLR-Plus stem at a mean follow-up of 4.1 years.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [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 · 2024Article
- Conservative femoral revision using short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape for selected Paprosky II-IV bone defects: an average seven-year follow-up.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Article
- Management of Severe Bone Defects in Femoral Revision following Total Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2024Review
- Cementless primary or revision stem in revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic stem loosening with Paprosky type I/II femoral defect?Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDemand for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is growing, and this type of surgery remains challenging for orthopedic surgeons. Our objectives were to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes, survivorship and complications with the SLR-Plus stem in revision THA.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 65 patients (66 hips) who had undergone revision THA with the SLR-Plus stem between 2008 and 2015 at two medical institutions with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The clinical outcome was assessed using the Harris hip score and the Merlé D'Aubigné score preoperatively and at final follow-up. A postoperative visual analogue scale for pain and satisfaction was also used. Radiographic subsidence and fixation, Kaplan-Meier survivorship and complications were analyzed.
resultsThe mean follow-up was 4.1 years (SD 2.1). Aseptic loosening (57.6%) was the main indication for surgery. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 50.4 (SD 16.5) to 83 (SD 12.7) (p < 0.001) and mean Merlé D'Aubigné score improved from 9.5 (SD 2.7) to 14.3 (SD 2.2) (p < 0.001). A total of 98.4% of stems showed radiographically stable fixation. No aseptic loosening of the stem was seen. Radiolucent lines > 1 mm were observed in 33.3% of stems. Three stems were re-revised: two due to infection and one due to instability. At 7 years, estimated stem survival was 95.5% for revision for any reason and 100% for revision for aseptic loosening. Dislocation occurred in 7.6% of hips.
conclusionWe have shown significant clinical improvement, 98.4% of stable fixation and 100% stem survivorship for aseptic loosening in revision THA with the SLR-Plus stem.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31617019What 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.