ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2023
Battle of the titans: Survivorship analysis of the 3 most common types of uncemented femoral stems used across national registries.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Although many institutions utilize uncemented stems as routine in performing total hip arthroplasty (THA), many surgeons continue to rely on outcomes reported in the literature in the form of small cohorts and patient series when analyzing survivorship for specific implants. The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the survivorship of the 3 most common uncemented stem types (as opposed to brands) used across multiple national joint registries. Methods: A review of data available from all national joint registries was carried out in July 2022. Analysis of each individual registry and classified uncemented implants into the seven different uncemented stem types. The 3 most common stem types were identified, and average cumulative revision rates calculated. Metal on metal bearings surface implants were excluded from this study due to high revision rates across all implant types. Results: Our detailed review identified 6 out of 13 (NJR, AOANJRR, LROI, EPRD, MARCQI and the NZJR) international registries reporting implant specific survivorship on uncemented femoral stems; including 960,328 uncemented stems across all registries. The most common type of stem used was type 3c, accounting for 61% (583,724), followed by type 1 stems with 23% (217,897) and type 2 stems with 8% (79,257). Cumulative revision rates at 13 years follow-up for these stems ranged from 6.9% to 7.9%. Conclusion: Although all stem types have comparable revision rates across all registries, the most common uncemented stem reported was the type 3c, tapered rectangular fully coated stem. Furthermore, out of all type 3c, the Müller design philosophy with full hydroxyapatite coating seems to be the most sought after worldwide. In this study we can conclude, thus far, that there does not appear to clinical or statistical differences in revision rates between the different stem types Level of evidence: III.
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.