ReviewHip & pelvis2021
Ultra-Short Bone Conserving Cementless Femoral Stem.
Review in Hip & pelvis, 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.
- Comparison of Periprosthetic Femoral Bone Remodeling After Total Hip Arthroplasty with Zimmer VerSys Taper Stem or VerSys Midcoat Stem: Long-Term Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Total Hip Arthroplasty with Extra-small Femoral Stems in Extremely Hypoplastic Femurs: A Case-Series Study.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2024Article
- What features of stem increase the risk of intraoperative femoral fracture during cementless primary hip arthroplasty?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of Short Curved Stems and Standard-length Single Wedged Stems for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2024Article
- Midterm Comparative Analysis of Short Femoral Stem Survivorship in Dorr Type A Femurs.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Excellent long-term results have been reported with conventional length cementless femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty; however, proximal stress shielding and thigh pain are still a concern. Metaphyseal engaging bone conserving short stems provide theoretical benefits compared with conventional length cementless stems, including avoiding proximal-distal mismatch, decreasing proximal stress shielding, and limiting perioperative fractures. The purpose of the ultra-short bone conserving cementless stem was to reproduce natural load transfer with an ultra-short stem obtaining optimal stability using the morphology of the proximal femur. Loss of stability of the stem and failure of osseous ingrowth is a potential concern with the use of ultra-short proximal loading cementless femoral stems. Ultra-short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic or non-anatomic cementless femoral stems provided stable fixation without relying on diaphyseal fixation in young and elderly patients, suggesting that metaphyseal-fitting alone is sufficient in young and elderly patients who have good bone quality.
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.