ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2020
Comparison of cementless and cemented cups in revision total hip arthroplasty using a computed tomography-based navigation system.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty with DELTA ST-C Cup and MINIMA S Stem.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Observational
- Smartphone Application Helps Improve the Accuracy of Cup Placement by Young, Less-Experienced Surgeons during Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies comparing cementless and cemented cups are lacking, especially for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the differences in implant accuracy between two fixation methods in revision THA.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 85 hips in 70 patients who underwent revision THA using a computed tomography (CT)-based navigation system. Among these, 53 hips underwent cementless THA and 32 hips underwent cemented THA. We measured cup inclination and anteversion using the Kyocera two-dimensional-template with X-ray (Japan-Kyocera, Shiga, Japan) and stem anteversion with CT. We calculated the combined anteversion [cup anteversion+0.7×stem anteversion].
resultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to definitive cup inclination and anteversion. The mean deviations in the inclination and anteversion angle were 40.3 ± 4.3 and 19.6 ± 6.2° in the cementless group and 40.5 ± 3.3 and 17.1 ± 5.1° in the cemented group. There were 11 outliers with respect to the Lewinnek safe zone in the cementless group and two in the cemented group (P = 0.072). Although there was no statistically significant difference, the number of safe zone outliers in the cemented group was less than that in the cementless group.
conclusionWe conclude that when using a navigation system for revision THA, high precision can be obtained for the cup placement angle with or without cement. However, it seems that a major error in the installation angle of the cup is less likely to occur when using a cemented cup than when using a cementless cup in revision THA with a navigation system.
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.