ArticleArthroplasty today2021
Medium Term Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Using a Modular Tapered Hip Revision Implant.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and functional outcomes of a modular fluted titanium stem in complex hip surgery with femoral bone loss.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Article
- Last generation fluted modular titanium stem in revision hip arthroplasty: a narrative review of mid- and long-term outcomes.Annals of joint · 2024Review
- Modular versus monoblock stem in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of joint · 2023Article
- EBRA Migration Analysis of a Modular, Distally Fixed Stem in Hip Revision Arthroplasty: A Clinical and Radiological Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rate of revision hip arthroplasty surgery is rising. Surgeons must use implants with proven outcomes to help overcome the technical challenges faced during revision surgery. However, outcome studies using these implants are limited. The aim of this study is to investigate the radiographic and clinical outcomes of the Stryker Restoration stem, the most commonly used hip revision stem in the United Kingdom (UK).
methodsA retrospective review of a single surgeon case series was performed. Immediate postoperative radiographs were analyzed for offset and leg length discrepancy. Radiographic evidence of subsidence was assessed using follow-up radiographs. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was applied using explantation and reoperation as endpoints. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Oxford Hip Score and EQ-5D-5L.
resultsOne hundred ninety-eight cases were identified. Mean follow-up duration was 51.8 months (range: 24-121). Stem survival during this period was 98%. Reoperation for any reason was 13%. Mean subsidence was 4.18 mm. Analysis of variance testing showed no difference in mean subsidence between revision indications. Mean offset and leg length discrepancies were measured at 4.5 mm and 4.3 mm, respectively. The mean Oxford Hip Score for participants was 27.6.
conclusionsThis series demonstrates excellent implant survival, with radiographic parameters for reconstruction and subsidence levels comparable to those in the existing literature. The tapered modular hip revision stem provides surgeons with the intraoperative flexibility to overcome some of the anatomical difficulties encountered during revision surgery; this is reflected in the radiographic and clinical outcomes of the cohort in this study.
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.