ArticleOrthopedic research and reviews2022
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Primary Stem or Full-Porous-Coated Long Stem for Aseptic Femoral Component Loosening: A Matched-Pair Study.
Article in Orthopedic research and reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is the use of primary cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty a reliable option? A systematic review.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Review
- CT protocols for lower limb arthroplasty: the Stanmore hip and knee protocols.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Monoblock or modular? Impact of stem design and conicity angle on long-term implant survival in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 20-year follow-up registry study on 3647 implants.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Cementless Primary Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Does size matter? Outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty with long or primary stems: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Article
- Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Vancouver B1 and B2 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Proportional Meta-Analysis.Hip & pelvis · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRevision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA) for loosening the femoral stem is a technical challenge. Distally fixed, full-porous-coated long stems are widely accepted as the standard selection for these revisions. However, the success of primary stems in RTHA is not well known.
methodsThis study enrolled 24 patients with aseptic loosening of the femoral stem who underwent RTHA using primary stems. Another 72 patients with aseptic loosening who underwent RTHA using full-porous-coated long stems were matched in terms of operation date, proximal femoral bone stock (Paprosky classification), sex, and age. The primary and secondary outcomes of failure were the need for revision for any reason and the radiographic change in the stem respectively.
resultsIn the primary stem group, one patient had a periprosthetic fracture and received a second RTHA 2 years after the previous one. The primary outcome's 5-and 10-year survival rates were both 95.8%. For the matched comparison group, one patient had an immediate periprosthetic fracture of the femoral shaft requiring further open reduction internal fixation surgery. Another patient had a full-porous-coated long stem breakage 6 years postoperatively, which required a second RTHA. The primary outcome's 5-and 10-year survival rates were 98.6% and 97.2%, respectively.
conclusionPrimary stems can achieve non-inferior clinical success compared to a full-porous-coated long stem for aseptic stem loosening RTHA in patients with adequate proximal femoral bone stock.
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.