ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
The use of a standard-length conical tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty to address Paprosky type I-II femoral defects: a prospective study of 87 patients.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is the use of primary cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty a reliable option? A systematic review.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Review
- Stabilizing the Unstable: Cone Hemiarthroplasty in Geriatric Intertrochanteric Fractures.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- 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
- Long stem revision versus short stem revision with plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture: a comparative study of eighty five cases.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLow-grade femoral defects in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) might be preferably treated with a primary implant. Almost no previous study reported the use of standard-length conical tapered (SLCT) stems in these cases. We analyzed a series of cases using a SLCT stem in rTHA with Paprosky type I-II femoral defects. The purpose of the study was to determine clinical and radiographic outcomes in this series of rTHA. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe prospectively followed 87 patients undergoing a femoral component rTHA: 53 Paprosky type I and 34 type II femoral defects. Patient-reported measures (Oxford Hip Score, EQ-5D, VAS pain during rest and activity) were administered at baseline, 1 and 2 years post-operatively. Radiographic subsidence overtime was scored. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the subsidence over time, the complication-free survival, and the implant survivorship with reoperation and stem revision as endpoints.
resultsThe mean follow-up was 72.5 (SD ± 23.9) months. All PROMs significatively improved over time. The average subsidence was 2.8 (SD ± 3.2), 3.6 (SD ± 4.4), and 4.0 (SD ± 4.9) mm at 4, 12, and 24 months respectively. 6 stems had subsidence > 10 mm. The survival without complication was 0.85 (95% CI 0.94-0.77), while the implant survival without reoperation was 0.83 (95% CI 0.95-0.72). The overall stem survival rate was 93.7% (95% CI 0.91-0.97) at 2 years.
conclusionThe use of a SLCT stem in rTHA with Paprosky type I-II femoral defects demonstrated good survival with low subsidence rates during the first 2 years after surgery. Surgeons should consider the use of this primary prosthesis as a potential treatment during stem revision in cases with limited femoral bone loss.
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.