ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2022
Cementless primary or revision stem in revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic stem loosening with Paprosky type I/II femoral defect?
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Femoral de-escalation during revision total hip arthroplasty using a rectangular-taper shortened stem.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Is the use of primary cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty a reliable option? A systematic review.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Review
- Cementless Primary Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of primary or revision stem during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for aseptic stem loosening with Paprosky type I/II femoral defect remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent revision THA with a primary or revision stem.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 78 patients who received revision THA for aseptic stem loosening using primary (N = 28) or revision stems (N = 50). The bone defects were classified as Paprosky type I or II. The mean follow-up duration was 72.3 ± 34.7 months. The primary outcome domains included surgical complications and implant failures. The secondary outcome domains included medical complications, 30- and 90-day readmission, and Harris hip score (HHS).
resultsThe use of revision stem was associated with a higher incidence than primary stem of patient complications (60.0% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.018), including intraoperative femur fracture (28.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.029) and greater trochanter fracture (16.0% vs. 0%, p = 0.045). The implant survival rate was comparable between groups. HHS at the final follow-up was similar.
conclusionWith a lower risk of surgical complications and a similar rate of mid-term implant survival, cementless primary stem appears superior to revision stem in revision THA for aseptic stem loosening with Paprosky type I/II femoral defect.
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.