Trial reportOrthopaedic surgery2020
Comparative Analysis between Short Stem and Conventional Femoral Stem in Patients with Osteonecrosis of Femoral Head: Metha Stem and Excia Stem.
Trial report in Orthopaedic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Midterm Comparative Analysis of Short Femoral Stem Survivorship in Dorr Type A Femurs.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2024Article
- Exploring molecular mechanisms of intra-articular changes in osteonecrosis of femoral head using DIA proteomics and bioinformatics.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- No significant differences in 60-day postoperative complication rates between conventional and shortened stems.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2023Article
- [Short hip stem for THA in avascular necrosis of the femoral head].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
- Mid-term results of short versus conventional cementless femoral stems in patients with bilateral osteonecrosis of the femoral head.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the intraoperative, radiological, and clinical short-term outcomes of cementless total hip arthroplasties (THA) using a short stem (SS) and a conventional femoral stem (CS) in a randomized prospective control study.
methodsFrom June 2011 to October 2017, patients who underwent cementless THA for idiopathic osteonecrosis of the femoral head were recruited. Patients had a minimum 2 years of follow-up after the operation. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent THA using an SS and those who underwent THA using a CS. SS were used in 34 patients (41 hips) and CS were used in 41 patients (45 hips). In both groups, the same cup was used in all cases, and the mean follow-up periods were 63 (26-101) months in the SS and 64 (26-101) months in the CS groups. Intraoperative, clinical, and radiological evaluations were performed for the two groups.
resultsThere was no difference in the demographics of the two groups. There was one patient with a proximal femoral crack in the SS group and one with a distal femoral crack in the CS group. Clinically, the mean Harris hip score was improved in both groups at 2-year follow-up. Radiographically endosteal osseointegrations were found in 40 of 41 cases in the SS group and in 44 of 45 cases in the CS group. There was one case of dislocation in each group. In the SS group, the acetabular cup was changed and repositioned 7 months after the initial operation. Stem loosening, infection, ceramic breakage, and varus/valgus change were not observed. There was a statistically significant lower stress shielding effect in the SS group. There were no differences in vertical/parallel offset and leg length discrepancy.
conclusionThe intraoperative, radiological, and clinical evaluations in both groups showed good outcomes and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.
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.