ArticlePloS one2020
Promising results of revision total hip arthroplasty using a hexagonal, modular, tapered stem in cases of aseptic loosening.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with aseptic loosening after primary total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of orthopedics · 2026Article
- The Role of Single Positive Cultures in Presumed Aseptic Total Hip and Knee Revision Surgery-A Systematic Review of the Literature.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Aseptic Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Single Modular Femoral Stem and a Modified Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy-Treatment Assessment With the Forgotten Joint Score-12.Arthroplasty today · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModular stems are widely used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with aseptic loosening being a common reason for revision. Despite the good results reported on the use of modular stem designs, there are only few studies focusing on aseptic revisions and few studies on a hexagonal stem design. The goal of this study is to determine stem survival, clinical and functional outcome along with possible risk factors for implant failure in aseptic revision THA.
methodsWe retrospectively identified 53 patients with aseptic THA revision using a modular hexagonal stem with a minimum follow-up of two years. Femoral bone loss, radiographic and clinical outcomes as well as function measured using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) was assessed. Patients' previous medical history was analyzed for comorbidities and the body mass index. Stem survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Possible risk factors for implant failure were analyzed using the log-rank test. The median age at revision was 69 (IQR 62-73) with a median follow up of 74 months.
resultsImplant survival rates amounted to 90.4% at 3 and 5 years. The median HHS improved by 47 points (34 (IQR 22-47) vs 81 (IQR 59-90) p<0.001). There was a reduced implant survival after 5 years when the revision stem was used following a previous cemented stem (83.4% vs 100%, p = 0.04).
conclusionA modular, hexagonal stem can be successfully used in aseptic revision THA with remarkable functional results and excellent survivorship. Revision of a cemented stem using this implant might result in reduced survival which must be considered when planning treatment.
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.