ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020
Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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.
- Twenty-year results of a neck-preserving short-stem prosthesis in primary total hip arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Clinical and radiologic outcomes in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with Collum Femoris Preserving stems: a comparison between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study examined a cohort of patients who underwent bilateral THAs. CFP prostheses and ribbed prostheses were each used on both sides. We assessed the midterm clinical, radiological, and bone remodeling outcomes around prosthesis of these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS From January 2009 to January 2013, 53 patients were enrolled in our study. We clinically evaluated all patients by recording Harris hip and Oxford hip scores. Some radiological indicators of the femoral prosthesis position were measured. Periprosthetic bone remodeling was assessed via bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. RESULTS The mean preoperative HHS of the CFP group and ribbed group were no significantly different (P=0.570). The neck-shaft angle in the ribbed group was significantly greater than in the CFP group (P<0.001). The CFP group had a greater offset (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in leg-length discrepancy (P=0.727) or Engh score between the 2 groups at the last follow-up (P=0.858). The preoperative BMD was increased at the last follow-up in Gruen zones 3 and 5 (P<0.05) and decreased in Gruen zones 1 and 7 (P<0.05) on the CFP side. BMD was increased in Gruen zone 4 (P=0.007) on the ribbed side. Pearson correlations and rate of complications were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS Both the CFP and ribbed stem significantly improved the preoperative HHSs and OHSs. The bone remodeling of the CFP stem was more concentrated in the middle and distal regions of the prosthesis, while that of the ribbed stem was more concentrated in the proximal portion of the prosthesis.
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.