Trial reportThe bone & joint journal2022
Is the French Paradox cementing philosophy superior to the standard cementing? A randomized controlled radiostereometric trial and comparative analysis.
Trial report in The bone & joint journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Comparison of Two Cementing Techniques of the Femoral Component in a Hip Prosthesis. A Randomized Single-blind Trial
Migration Analysis of a Hybrid Hip Replacement Evaluating Stem and Ancillary Acetabular Screw Fixation-A Randomized Controlled CT-RSA Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low Rate of Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture in Dorr Type B and C Femurs With the Anterior Approach Using Stems Cemented According to the "French Paradox".Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Cementing technique of the femur in primary THA: the French paradox.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- A comparison of cemented femoral fixation via anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 60,739 total hip arthroplasties.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2024Article
- [Current design and cement mantle thickness in hip arthroplasty : Theory and analysis of register data].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Bone Cement Implantation Syndrome: A Rare Disaster Following Cemented Hip Arthroplasties-Clinical Considerations Supported by Case Studies.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsHighly polished stems with force-closed design have shown satisfactory clinical results despite being related to relatively high early migration. It has been suggested that the minimal thickness of cement mantles surrounding the femoral stem should be 2 mm to 4 mm to avoid aseptic loosening. The line-to-line cementing technique of the femoral stem, designed to achieve stem press-fit, challenges this opinion. We compared the migration of a highly polished stem with force-closed design by standard and line-to-line cementing to investigate whether differences in early migration of the stems occur in a clinical study.
methodsIn this single-blind, randomized controlled, clinical radiostereometric analysis (RSA) study, the migration pattern of the cemented Corail hip stem was compared between line-to-line and standard cementing in 48 arthroplasties. The primary outcome measure was femoral stem migration in terms of rotation and translation around and along with the X-, Y-, and Z- axes measured using model-based RSA at three, 12, and 24 months. A linear mixed-effects model was used for statistical analysis.
resultsResults from mixed model analyses revealed a lower mean retroversion for line-to-line (0.72° (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38° to 1.07°; p < 0.001), but no significant differences in subsidence between the techniques (-0.15 mm (95% CI -0.53 to 0.227; p = 0.429) at 24 months. Radiolucent lines measuring < 2 mm wide were found in three and five arthroplasties cemented by the standard and line-to-line method, respectively.
conclusionThe cemented Corail stem with a force-closed design seems to settle earlier and better with the line-to-line cementing method, although for subsidence the difference was not significant. However, the lower rate of migration into retroversion may reduce the wear and cement deformation, contributing to good long-term fixation and implant survival. Cite this article:
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.