ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2023
Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2023. 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.
- Does introduction of a cemented polished taper-slip femoral stem reduce early periprosthetic fracture risk with anterior approach total hip arthroplasty? A case-matched study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Mid-term outcomes after primary total hip arthroplasty with a cemented short stem in an elderly patient cohort.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Observational
- The cemented stem in hip arthroplasty - state of the art technique and recommendations.EFORT open reviews · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aims were to compare the survival of the cemented standard (150 mm) with the short (DDH [35.5 mm offset or less], number 1 short stem [125 mm options of 37.5 mm, 44 mm, 50 mm offset] and revision [44/00/125]) Exeter
methodsPatients were retrospectively identified from an arthroplasty database. A total of 664 short stem Exeter
resultsThe median survival time for the short stems varied according to design: DDH had a survival time of 6.7 years, number 1 stems 4.1 years, and revision stems 7.2 years. Subjects in the short stem group (n = 664) were significantly younger (mean difference 5.1, P < 0.001) and were more likely to be female (odds ratio 1.89, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.39, P < 0.001), compared to the standard group. There were no differences in THA (P = 0.26) or stem (P = 0.35) survival at 5 years (adjusted THA: 98.3% vs. 97.2%; stem 98.7% vs. 97.8%) or 10 years (adjusted THA 97.0% vs. 96.0 %; stem 96.7% vs. 96.2%) between standard and short stem groups, respectively. At 5 years no differences were found in THA (DDH: 96.7%, number 1 97.5%, revision 97.3%, standard 98.6%) or stem (DDH: 97.6%, number 1 99.0%, revision 97.3%, standard 98.2%) survival between/among the different short stems or when compared to the standard group.
conclusionThe Exeter
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.