ArticleIrish journal of medical science2024
The utility of cemented femoral stems in modern THA: a 10-year comparative analysis of the Charnley and Exeter stems.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Back to the Future? Institutional Learning Curves and Intraoperative Fracture Rates Associated With Adoption of a Cemented Composite Beam Stem for Hemiarthroplasty.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Outcomes of cemented taper slip versus composite beam femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Qatar medical journal · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. The controversy surrounding the relative merits of a cemented composite beam or cemented taper-slip stem in total hip replacement continues. Our aims primarily were to assess the 10-year outcomes of cemented stems using Charnley and Exeter prostheses with regional registry data and secondarily to assess the main predictors of revision.
methodsWe prospectively collected registry data for procedures performed between January 2005 and June 2008. Only cemented Charnley and Exeter stems were included. Patients were prospectively reviewed at 6 months, 2, 5 and 10 years. The primary outcome measure was a 10-year all-cause revision. Secondary outcomes included 're-revision', 'mortality' and functional 'Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index' (WOMAC) scores.
resultsWe recorded a total of 1351 cases in the cohort, 395 Exeter and 956 Charnley stems. The overall all-cause revision rate at 10 years was 1.6%. The revision rate for Charnley stem was 1.4% and 2.3% revision rate for all Exeter stems with no significant difference noted between the two cohorts (p = 0.24). The overall time to revision was 38.3 months. WOMAC scores at 10 years were found to be insignificantly higher for Charnley stems (mean 23.8, σ = 20.11) compared to Exeter stems (mean 19.78, σ = 20.72) (p = 0.1).
conclusionThere is no significant difference between cemented Charnley and Exeter stems; they both perform well above the international average. The decline in the use of cemented THA is not fully supported by this regional registry data.
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.