ReviewEFORT open reviews2021
Temporal subsidence patterns of cemented polished taper-slip stems: a systematic review.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Cemented Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Review
- Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures-Beyond B2.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Review
- Femoral stem taper geometry and porous coating in cementless direct anterior primary total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Collarless Polished Tapered Stems of Identical Shape Provide Differing Outcomes for Stainless Steel and Cobalt Chrome: A Biomechanical Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Total Hip Replacement with Use of the French Paradox Cementing Technique for a Shortened Charnley-Kerboull Stem via a Bikini Approach.JBJS essential surgical techniquesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The literature was reviewed to establish the levels of stem subsidence for both double and triple-tapered implants in order to determine whether there were any differences in subsidence levels with regard to the methods of measurement, the magnitude and rate of subsidence and clinical outcomes.All studies reporting subsidence of polished taper-slip stems were identified. Patient demographics, implant design, radiological findings, details of surgical technique, methods of measurement and levels of subsidence were collected to investigate which factors were related to increased subsidence.Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 28 papers of relevance were identified. The studies initially recruited 3090 hips with 2099 being available for radiological analysis at final follow-up. Patient age averaged 68 years (42-70), 60.4% were female and the average body mass index (BMI) was 27.4 kg/m
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.