Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33675168›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2021

Comparison of Tri-Lock Bone Preservation Stem and the Conventional Standard Corail Stem in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Jiang Guo, Jie Tan, Lei Peng, Qian Song, Hao-Ran Kong, Peng Wang, Hui-Yong Shen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jiang GuoDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Jie TanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Orthopeadic Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Lei PengDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5406-3259
Qian SongDepartment of Osteology, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Hao-Ran KongDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Peng WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6392-0184
Hui-Yong ShenDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Tri-Lock Bone Preservation Stem (BPS) and the conventional standard Corail stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

methodsFrom March 2012 to May 2014, we retrospectively reviewed 84 patients (104 hips) who received Tri-Lock (BPS) and 84 patients (115 hips) who received conventional standard Corail stem in THA. Their mean ages were 53.12 ± 2.32 years and 52.00 ± 2.11 years, respectively. The clinical outcomes were assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Harris Hip Score (HHS). The radiological outcomes were evaluated by the radiological examination. Accordingly, Intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed as well.

resultsThe mean follow-up time was 48.23 ± 2.91 months in the Tri-Lock (BPS) group and 49.11 ± 2.11 months in the Corail group, respectively. The bleeding volumes in two groups were comparable (169.22 ± 58.11 mL vs 179.30 ± 59.14 mL, P = 0.003), with more bleeding volume in Corail group patients, while no statistically significance with respect to operation time was observed (65.41 ± 6.24 min vs 63.99 ± 6.33 min, P = 0.567). The rates of intraoperative fracture was 8% for the Corail group while 1% for the Tri-Lock (BPS) group (8% vs 1%, P = 0.030). At final follow-up, no statistical differences in regard to HHS, WOMAC, and Pain VAS were revealed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The rate of thigh pain was higher in Corail group than in Tri-lock (BPS) group (5% vs 0%, P = 0.043). However, incidence of stress shielding in grade 1 was higher in Tri-Lock (BPS) than in the Corail group (76% vs 23%, P < 0.01), while those in grade 2 and 3 were lower compared to the Corail stem (15% vs 28%, P < 0.01; 9% vs 16%, P = 0.008, respectively). Intriguingly, other assessments in relation to radiographic outcomes and postoperative complications were not comparable between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier survival rate (revision surgery performed for any reason was defined as the end point) was similar between the two groups (P = 0.57), with 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 92.3%-100%) in Tri-lock (BPS) group and 97.6% (95% confidence interval, 94.6%-100%) in Corail group.

conclusionsThe Tri-Lock (BPS) has similar clinic performances compared to the Corail stem. Furthermore, the Tri-lock (BPS) stem has some advantages in achieving lower incidence of thigh pain, stress shielding and intra-operative fracture. Therefore, we recommend the Tri-lock (BPS) stem as a good alternative in primary total hip arthroplasty, especially taking into account patient factors, including bone deficiency and convenience of extraction of the stem in hip revision.

Indexed as

Hip ProsthesisProsthesis DesignArthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesConventional standard stemPrimaryShort StemTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID33675168
PMCPMC8126948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.