ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2023
The Watson Extraction System for removal of well-fixed femoral stems: A retrospective review of 10 cases.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Limited Femorotomy as an Alternative to Extensive Trochanteric Osteotomy for Cementless Femoral Prosthesis Revision.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Femoral stem extraction devices.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision of well-fixed cementless femoral stems is a challenging and time-consuming aspect of revision hip arthroplasty. The Watson Extraction System (WES) is a novel, size-specific 3-D fabricated instrument that mimics the outer geometry of the implanted femoral stem. The device acts to cut circumferentially around the stem as it is impacted into place, effectively disrupting the bone-implant interface. Methods: This is a retrospective review assessing the experience of 3 fellowship-trained adult reconstruction surgeons who used the WES to extract 10 well-fixed femoral stems during rTHA between 11/7/2020 and 11/7/2022. Outcomes and measures included: ability to remove the stem without a femoral osteotomy, femoral stem extraction time, incidence of femoral fracture, stem type used for reconstruction, blood loss, total surgical time, post-operative complications. Results: No femoral osteotomies were required. The mean time for stem extraction was 7 min (range, 2-13), and there were 2 (20%) intra-operative femoral fractures. The stem type utilized for reconstruction included: 4 (40%) modular, tapered style stems, 3 (30%) antibiotic spacers, 2 (20%) primary style stems, and 1 (10%) ream and broach proximally porous stem. The mean blood loss was 425 ml (range, 200-800), total surgical time was 160 min (range, 107-232), and duration of follow-up was 7 months (range, 2-22 months). Conclusion: The WES may mitigate the need for femoral osteotomy, reduce femoral stem extraction and overall intraoperative time, and decrease blood loss in rTHA. Further, reduced bone loss with use of this device may permit final reconstruction with a primary style stem.
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.