ArticleArthroplasty today2020
Bone Remodeling of Two Anatomic Stems: Densitometric Study of the Redesign of the ABG-II Stem.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprosthetic bone remodeling, which is a phenomenon observed in all femoral stems, has a multifactorial origin as it depends on factors related to the patient, the surgical technique, and the design of the implant. To determine the pattern of remodeling produced by 2 models of anatomic cementless implants, we quantified the changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in the 7 areas of Gruen observed at different moments after surgery during the first postoperative year.
methodsA prospective, comparative, controlled, 1-year follow-up densitometric study was carried out in 2 groups of patients suffering from primary unilateral hip osteoarthritis. In the first group, with 68 patients, an ABG-II stem was implanted. In the second, with 66 patients, the ANATO stem was used. The contralateral, healthy hip was taken as a control.
resultsBoth groups showed a decrease in BMD at 3 months in all the areas, which recovered at the end of the study, except in zone 7: there was a 17.7% decrease in the ABG-II group and a 5.9% decrease in the ANATO group. In zones 2 and 6, where more loads are transmitted, conservation of BMD is observed in response to Wolff's law. The differences in the pattern of remodeling between groups were maintained despite the age, gender, and BMI of the patients or the size of the implants.
conclusionThe ANATO stem achieved a more efficient transmission of loads at the metaphyseal level, which promotes bone preservation at the proximal femur, than the ABG-II 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.