ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2021
Are powder-technology-built stems safe? A midterm follow-up registry study.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06527664 (Innovative Technologies for Cost-Effective Healthcare Delivery for Salvage Procedures of Failed Treatments of Osteoarthritis), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Innovative Technologies for Cost-Effective Healthcare Delivery for Salvage Procedures of Failed Treatments of Osteoarthritis: Specific Biomimetics Solutions to Reduce a Growing Problem With a High Social and Economic Impact.(CustomPN)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Orthopaedics and Additive Manufacturing: The Start of a New Era.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesReview
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPowder technology was developed to bring together the mechanical features and high porosity of titanium. However, the high porosity may theoretically compromise mechanical resistance. Literature is deficient about the use and safety profile of cementless femoral implants built using additive manufacturing (in particular electron beam melting technology, EBM). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival rates and the reason for revisions (especially implant breakage) of the first two EBM-built stems at a mid-term follow-up, using a joint arthroplasty registry.
methodsThe registry of Prosthetic Orthopedic Implant (RIPO) was investigated about cementless stems implanted from 2010 to 2017. Stems built with EBM technology (Parva and Pulchra stems; Adler Ortho, Milan, Italy) were compared to all the other cementless stems implanted during the same period, acting as control group. The survival rates and reasons for revision were assessed.
resultsNo stem breakage occurred. At 5-year follow-up, the survival rates of the two cohorts were not statistically different (96.8% EBM stems, 98.0% standard cementless stems; p > 0.05). In the EBM stems, aseptic loosening occurred in 1.7% of the cases at the latest follow-up.
conclusionsThis large cohort showed that mechanical resistance is not a concern in EBM stems at mid-term follow-up. However, larger populations and longer follow-ups are needed to further validate these results.
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.