ArticleScientific reports2021
Future of total hip arthroplasty with the Metha short stem in modern surgeries.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term outcomes with a partial neck-preserving cementless short stem in primary total hip arthroplasty for young patients: a single center first one hundred cases.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Mid- to long-term periprosthetic bone density changes after cementless short stem hip arthroplasty in elderly: A clinical and radiological analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to analyse the results of uncemented total hip replacement, using the Metha (metaphyseal) stem. A total of 158 patients (70 females and 88 males) were qualified to the study and submitted to total hip arthroplasty (183 procedures altogether), using the Metha stem. The mean age of the patients on the day of surgery was 51.7 years (the range from 17 to 69 years). The mean follow up period was 9.2 years (the range from 5 to 13.5 years). Preoperative assessments gave poor scores, according to the Merle d'Aubigne and Postel classification, modified by Charnley. The average improvement after surgery, according to the used scale, was 6.9 points. A very good outcome was recorded in 154 cases (84.2%), a good outcome was achieved in 20 cases (10.9%) and a poor outcome was confirmed in 9 cases, while no satisfactory case was observed. Poor outcomes were associated with implant loosening. Extraskeletal ossification was noted in 10 cases (5.5%). According to the Kaplan-Meier estimator, the 10-year survival was 93.2% and 97.3% for the whole implant and the stem alone, respectively. 1. Our follow-up period of more than 9 years on the average, indicates that Metha stems produce excellent clinical and functional results in operated young patients with advanced degenerative changes of the hip joint. 2. Assuming a proper qualification for the procedure, the absence of complications and a correct surgical technique, which is slightly more difficult, when compared to standard stem implantation, the risk of aseptic loosening is fairly negligible.
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.