Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32377392›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2020

Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system.

Adrian J Cassar-Gheiti, Rosie McColgan, Martin Kelly, Theresa M Cassar-Gheiti, Paddy Kenny, Colin G Murphy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Influence of bone quality on femoral stress distribution after cemented stem insertion: an experimental thermoelastic stress analysis.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Experience of an anatomic femoral stem in a UK orthopaedic centre beyond 20 years of follow-up.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Adrian J Cassar-GheitiCappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Rosie McColganGalway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland.
Martin KellyConnolly Hospital, Orthopaedic Department, Dublin, Ireland.
Theresa M Cassar-GheitiCappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Paddy KennyCappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Colin G MurphyGalway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cemented implant fixation design principles have evolved since the 1950s, and various femoral stem designs are currently in use to provide a stable construct between the implant-cement and cement-bone interfaces.Cemented stems have classically been classified into two broad categories: taper slip or force closed, and composite beams or shaped closed designs. While these simplifications are acceptable general categories, there are other important surgical details that need to be taken into consideration such as different broaching techniques, cementing techniques and mantle thickness.With the evolution of cemented implants, the introduction of newer implants which have hybrid properties, and the use of different broaching techniques, the classification of a very heterogenous group of implants into simple binary categories becomes increasingly difficult. A more comprehensive classification system would aid in comparison of results and better understanding of the implants' biomechanics.We review these differing stem designs, their respective cementing techniques and geometries. We then propose a simple four-part classification system and summarize the long-term outcomes and international registry data for each respective type of cemented prosthesis. Cite this article:

Indexed as

arthroplastycementhip replacement

Identifiers

PMID32377392
PMCPMC7202038

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.