ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Porous Ti-6Al-4V Architectures in Load-Bearing Orthopedic Reconstruction: A Critical Narrative Review of the Translational Gap Across Microstructure, Fatigue, Surface Function, and Clinical Failure Modes.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The use of short cementless femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures: a scoping review of the literature.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Article
- Outcomes following primary total hip arthroplasty with ceramic-on-metal and metal-on-metal bearings.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Observational
- Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasties Using Short Femoral Stems: Is It Possible?Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- The 3D-Printed Customized Femoral Short Stem Offers Improved Anatomical Parameters Restoration, Fitness and Biomechanical Performance Compared With Traditional Femoral Stem.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Cemented Calcar-Guided Short-Stem Prostheses in Geriatric Patients: Short-Term Results from a Prospective Observational Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- No differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes between standard offset and high offset short cementless stems.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Equivalent revision rates and patient reported outcomes with routine use of a short (125mm) cemented stem for total hip arthroplasty compared to a standard length (150mm) cemented stem. A two surgeon series of 1335 patients.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Ten-year follow-up and clinical outcome of a metaphyseal anchoring short hip stem prosthesis: a retrospective single-centre analysis.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- No significant differences in 60-day postoperative complication rates between conventional and shortened stems.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Standard versus short stem cemented ExeterArthroplasty (London, England) · 2023Article
- Clinical and radiological results of high offset tri-lock bone preservation stem in unilateral primary total hip arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 3 years.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
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
backgroundIn total hip arthroplasty (THA), short-stem prostheses (SS) were designed to achieve better preservation of proximal femoral bone stock and stability than conventional stem prostheses (CS), however these effects are controversial. We aimed perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of SS and CS in primary THA.
methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the comparison of SS and CS in primary THA were screened using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Data were analyzed with the RevMan 5.3 software program and evaluated with mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by random or fixed-effect models.
resultsSixteen RCTs involving 1,233 patients (1,486 hips) were included. Compared with CS, the incidence of thigh pain was significantly reduced with Proxima SS (RR 0.13, 95% CI, 0.03-0.51; P=0.004). Bone mineral density (BMD) with femoral neck-preserved SS [SS (I)] showed less decrease in Gruen zone 1 (MD 14.60, 95% CI, 10.67-18.54; P<0.00001) and Gruen zone 7 (MD 9.72, 95% CI, 5.21-14.23; P<0.0001) than CS. However, the changes of BMD were not significantly different between the SS without femoral neck preservation group [SS (II)] and the CS group. In addition, no significant differences were found in the revision rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS), or maximum total point motion (MTPM) between the SS and CS groups.
conclusionsThe results of this study showed that compared with CS, Proxima SS decreased the incidence of thigh pain and that SS (I) provided better proximal bone remodeling than CS. But the revision rates, HHS, and MTPM between SS and CS were similar. However, the findings of this meta-analysis require further verification in high-quality RCTs.
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.