ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020
Comparison of cylindrical and tapered stem designs for femoral revision hip arthroplasty.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of modular versus monoblock stems in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2023Pooled it
- Revision Hip Arthroplasty with a Single-Taper Cementless Conical Revision Stem: Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of 57 Implants.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Observational
- Periprosthetic Fracture After Cementless Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Tapered, Fluted Monobloc Stem: A Retrospective Long-Term Analysis of 121 Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Use of Limited Femorotomy as an Alternative to Extensive Trochanteric Osteotomy for Cementless Femoral Prosthesis Revision.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- [Medium- and long-term effectiveness of hip revision with SL-PLUS MIA stem in patients with Paprosky typeZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Article
- Conservative femoral revision using short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape for selected Paprosky II-IV bone defects: an average seven-year follow-up.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Article
- Management of Severe Bone Defects in Femoral Revision following Total Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2024Review
- Comparison of Cylindrical and Tapered Stem Designs for Femoral Revision Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Subsidence of monoblock and modular titanium fluted tapered stems in revision hip arthroplasty: A retrospective multicentre comparison study.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2022Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth cylindrical and tapered stems are commonly used in revision total hip arthroplasty. However, whether the geometry of prosthesis stem has an effect on patient prognosis is unclear. We assume that the tapered stem results in better clinical outcome than the cylindrical stem.
methodsA multicenter review of 120 femoral revisions with Paprosky I, II, and III defects using cobalt chrome cylindrical stem (54 hips) or titanium tapered stem (66 hips) was performed with an average follow-up of 6 years. Demographic data were comparable between groups.
resultsNo significant group differences were found in surgery time, bleeding volume, postoperative Harris Hip Score, level of overall satisfaction, and 8-year cumulative survival. However, intraoperative fractures occurred significantly less in the tapered group (4.5%) than in the cylindrical group (14.8%), and stem subsidence was significantly less in the tapered group (2.17 mm) than in the cylindrical group (4.17 mm). A higher ratio of bone repair and lower bone loss were observed in the tapered group compared with the cylindrical group. The postoperative thigh pain rate was higher in the cylindrical group (12.9%) than in the tapered group (4.5%).
conclusionBoth cylindrical stem and tapered stem can achieve satisfactory mid-term clinical results in revision total hip arthroplasty. The tapered stem has better bone restoration of proximal femur, lower incidence of intraoperative fractures, and lower postoperative thigh pain rate compared with the cylindrical stem.
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.