ArticleInternational journal of burns and trauma2021
Comparison of two different stems for total hip arthroplasty.
Article in International journal of burns and trauma, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative risk of osteoporotic fractures with direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review.International journal of burns and trauma · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Conventional Prostheses Against Dual-Mobility Prostheses in the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures in Two Separate Groups of Patients: A Clinical Trial Study.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) is the golden standard in treating severe osteoarthritis, which has not responded to conservative treatment. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the therapeutic results of THA using Short-stem and Standard-stem prostheses.
methodsThe study was a randomized clinical trial without a control group that was performed in 2020. A total number of 156 patients were recruited over three years. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group was treated with a Short-stem prosthesis and the second group was treated with a Standard-stem prosthesis. Patients were visited according to a schedule. At each visit, a control graph was prepared and the condition of the bone prosthesis and its position were examined. Also, the status of cane use and weightlifting were evaluated. Clinical signs such as pain, lameness, and the ability to climb stairs were assessed and recorded based on the Harris scale. Patients were also evaluated for surgical complications such as infection or limb length discrepancy.
resultsData of 140 patients were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 60.2 ± 6.38 years. The amount of bleeding in the short-stem group was significantly lower than the standard-stem group (380.17 ml versus 430.13 ml, P = 0.001). In both groups, there was a significant increase in Harris score after the end of the study compared to before the operations. Furthermore, Harris's mean score was higher in the short-stem group compared to standard-stem group. However, these significant differences were observed only in the sixth week (P < 0.0001) and the third month (P < 0.0001).
conclusionThe use of Short-stem prosthesis in the short term can play a role in improving patient performance but in the long term evaluations, there is no apparent difference with the use of Standard-stem prostheses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34336381PMC8310869W3191968261What 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.