ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2023
Cemented
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Trial
- Association between functional combined anteversion and dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Long-term implant survival, functional, and radiological assessment of cemented stem in revision hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Characteristics of patients showing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty in an acute care hospital: A retrospective cohort study.Medicine · 2025Observational
- What Is the Role of Local Antimicrobial Protection for One-Stage Revision for Peri-Prosthetic Hip Infection?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- Radiological Comparison of Canal Fill between Collared and Non-Collared Femoral Stems: A Two-Year Follow-Up after Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of imaging · 2024Article
- Cementless Primary Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe popularity of uncemented stems in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased in the last decade.
aimTo assess the outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems after mid-term follow up.
methodsThis study was performed following both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement and the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Articles were chosen irrespective of country of origin or language utilized for the article full texts. This paper included studies that reviewed revision THA for both cemented or uncemented long stems.
resultsThree eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis was conducted by using Review Manager version 5.3. We computed the risk ratio as a measure of the treatment effect, taking into account heterogeneity. We used random-effect models. There were no significant differences found for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-5.32;
conclusionThis study has evaluated the mid-term outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems at first-time revision THA. In summary, there were no significant differences in the dislocation rate, aseptic loosening, intraoperative periprosthetic fracture and infection rate between the two cohorts.
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.