ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Clinical evaluation of the cemented Exeter Short 125 mm stem at a minimum of 3 years: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can artificial intelligence generate scientific discussion that passes peer review for publication in a high-impact orthopaedic journal?Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Mid-term outcomes after primary total hip arthroplasty with a cemented short stem in an elderly patient cohort.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Observational
- Equivalent revision rates and patient reported outcomes with routine use of a short (125mm) cemented stem for total hip arthroplasty compared to a standard length (150mm) cemented stem. A two surgeon series of 1335 patients.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Standard versus short stem cemented ExeterArthroplasty (London, England) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2014, Stryker introduced a modified shorter Exeter stem measuring 125 mm. Little is currently known about the functional performance of this implant in vivo. This study reports implant survival, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), re-operation and complication rates at a minimum of 3 years for the Exeter 125 mm stem.
methodsProspective cohort study which followed a standardised data collection protocol. PROMs data, including the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EQ-5D-3L and Harris Hip Score were collected at baseline (peri-operatively), 1-year post-operation and 3 years post-operation. Clinical outcomes, including revision, reoperation and rates of complications in the immediate post-operation period, and at longer term follow up were also documented.
resultsImplant survival was 100% at 3-years with no cases undergoing or planned to undergo revision surgery. At 3-years, the OHS had increased by a mean of 22.7 (S.D 10.9), the EQ-5D-3L Index by a mean of 0.467 (S.D 0.437) and the HHS by a mean of 32 (S.D 22.8) in comparison to their baseline measurements (all p < 0.001). There were no serious implant related complications such as infection, recurrent dislocation or peri-prosthetic fracture.
conclusionThis study has demonstrated that the Exeter Short 125 mm Stem implants are a safe and effective option for total hip replacements (THR). The PROMs data obtained for the patients who received these implants were comparable to the NJR PROMs data for patients that receive a 'standard' THR of any size stem. With increased use of these types of implants, larger patient pools and longer periods of follow-up can further assess the longevity of the short stem implant.
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.