ArticleCureus2022
MINIMA Short Stem Versus Standard Profemur (TL) Stem in Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- The use of short cementless femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures: a scoping review of the literature.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Article
- Total Hip Arthroplasty with the Conservative Cementless MINIMA Size 1 Stem in Patients with a Small Femoral Canal: 3-6 Years of Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Variability in Self-Reported Preoperative Pain Between Clinic Visits and Day of Surgery.Cureus · 2025Article
- Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasties Using Short Femoral Stems: Is It Possible?Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Early Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty with DELTA ST-C Cup and MINIMA S Stem.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Observational
- Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management Part 2: Postoperative Diagnostic Imaging Strategy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of our study was to compare a novel squared section, tapered design - with four conicity - short stem, the MINIMA® short stem with the cementless Profemur® TL standard femoral stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in terms of functional outcomes, radiologic evaluation and other peri-operative and post-operative data. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis is a comparative study including 46 patients undergoing primary THA. In 23 patients, the MINIMA® short stem was used. These patients were matched with another 23 patients in whom a cementless Profemur® TL standard femoral stem was used. The levels of the pain were evaluated according to the Visual Analog Scale/Numerical Rating Scale (VAS/NRS). The functional and clinical evaluation of the patients was performed with Harris Hip Score (HHS), Charnley's Hip score, EuroQol (EQ-5D)-(EQ-100), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and neuropathic pain questionnaire (DN-4). The rest of the comparison data included demographic data, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA), Charlson Index score, the pre-operative diagnosis, radiographic evaluation, the days of hospitalization, the operating time, incision length, blood loss, and blood transfusion requirements and complication rates.
resultsThe two cohorts had comparable results regarding all patients' peri-operative data. The radiographic assessment revealed considerable higher levels of femoral offset and femoral subsidence for the MINIMA group, but within acceptable limits for both cohorts. The majority of the functional and other scores did not give strong prominence to one specific femoral stem.
conclusionOur comparative study underlined the efficacy of the MINIMA® short stem, due to the fact that it revealed comparable and, in some cases, relatively better short-term outcomes compared with the TL standard femoral stem. Yet, more well-designed long-term research is required in order to further establish its effectiveness.
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.