Trial reportScientific reports2021
No difference for changes in BMD between two different cementless hip stem designs 2 years after THA.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 2 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates how 2 different total hip arthroplasty (THA) stems compares regarding adaptive bone remodelling. The stems are both proximally porous coated, aiming for proximal fixation, but with different dispersal of the coating. They are also differently designed regarding the distal tip of the stem. We aimed to investigate if there is a difference in periprosthetic adaptive bone remodelling between two different designs. From February 2016 to September 2017, we randomised 62 patients, 1:1 (mean age = 64 years, Female/Male = 28/34), scheduled for an uncemented THA to receive either an EBM or a BM THA stem. We performed dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans within a week after surgery and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months with measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) in the 7 Gruen zones (region of interest (ROI) 1-7). Additionally, Oxford Hip Score and Harris Hip Score were collected at 6, 12 and 24 months. We found a decrease in BMD between the postoperative and the 24-months values in all ROIs for both stems. The greatest decrease over time was seen for both groups in the ROI1 (BM = - 8.4%, p = 0.044, and EBM = - 6.5%, p = 0.001) and ROI7 (BM = - 7%, p = 0.005, and EBM = - 8.6%, p < 0.0005). We found a tendency in ROI2-4 of a higher degree of bone loss in the EBM group. However, this difference only continued beyond 6 months in ROI4 (24 months: BM = - 1.2% and EBM = - 2.8%, p = 0.001). The stems show similar adaptive bone remodelling and are clinically performing well.
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.