ArticleDer Orthopade2022
Downsizing in total hip arthroplasty. A short stem as a revision implant.
Article in Der Orthopade, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Short-stem THA-complications and therapy options].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasties Using Short Femoral Stems: Is It Possible?Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Cementless Primary Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Subsidence analysis of a cementless short stem THA using EBRA-FCA - A seven-year prospective multicentre study.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Conversion of failed internal fixation in proximal femur fractures using calcar-guided short-stem total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShort stems have constantly gained popularity in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) over the last decade. Although cementless short stems are not primarily designed to be used as revision implants, there may be certain indications for which downsizing the femoral component in failed conventional THA is potentially advantageous.
methodsIn this single center retrospective case series, six patients who underwent revision using a calcar-guided short stem after failed THA are presented. The mean follow-up was 3.32 years (SD 0.63 years). The health status was evaluated by the EQ-5D-5L score. Patient reported outcome measurements (PROM) were recorded using the Harris hip score (HHS) and The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Pain and satisfaction were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Radiographic analysis was performed by evaluating osteolysis, stress shielding, alignment and signs of aseptic loosening. Complications were documented.
resultsAt last follow-up the mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.851 (SD 0.098). Clinical outcome was excellent (HHS ≥ 90) in 4 patients and moderate (HHS 71 and 79) in 2 patients. The mean WOMAC score was 9.20% (SD 12.61%). Pain and satisfaction on VAS were 1.00 (SD 1.15) and 9.17 (SD 0.37), respectively. No major complications occurred. To date, no further revision surgery was needed. Radiologically, no signs of subsidence, aseptic loosening, stress shielding and fractures were obvious.
conclusionThe present case series indicates that in failed conventional THA downsizing may be considered a treatment option, using short stem THA in selected cases.
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.