ArticleInternational orthopaedics2020
Bone remodelling and integration of two different types of short stem: a dual-energy X-ray - absorptiometry study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mid- to long-term periprosthetic bone density changes after cementless short stem hip arthroplasty in elderly: A clinical and radiological analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Comparison study of periprosthetic bone remodeling between simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty and unilateral total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort study.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Preserved periprosthetic bone stock at 5 years post-operatively with uncemented short hip stem in both collared and collarless version.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Article
- Ceramic-on-metal coupling in THA: long term clinical and radiographic outcomes using two different short stems.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Future of total hip arthroplasty with the Metha short stem in modern surgeries.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDifferent kinds of bone preserving hip stems have been created to assure a more physiological distribution of the strengths on the femur. The aim of this research is to evaluate the density reaction of the periprosthetic bone while changing the conformation of the prosthetic implant on dual-energy X-ray - absorptiometry (DXA).
methodsThis is a prospective, single-centre study assessing bone remodelling changes after implantation of two short hip stems, dividing the patients in two groups according to the implant used: 20 in group A, Metha (B-Braun), and 16 in group B, SMF (Smith and Nephew). All participants had a pre-operative and a post-operative (24 months) DXA evaluating the changes in bone mass density (BMD) occurred in the five Gruen's zones.
resultsCompared to the pre-operative value, differences in BMD percentage were statistically significant only in ROI 4 (p < 0.05), with an increase in both groups (9 and 18%, respectively). The average increase in BMD was of 7.3% and 7.2% in the 2 groups.
conclusionAccording to our study, both stems have proved able to provide good load distribution across the metaphyseal region favouring proper system integration. Nonetheless, is certainly needed to perform other studies with longer follow-up and bigger populations to give strength to these conclusions.
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.