ArticleArthroplasty today2023
Does Powered Femoral Broaching Compromise Patient Safety in Total Hip Arthroplasty?
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Automated impaction in uncemented total hip arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis.Bone & joint open · 2026Pooled it
- Early Performance of a Collared, Triple-Tapered Cementless Femoral Stem in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Low risk of periprosthetic fracture and subsidence with automated impaction device in arthroplasty following femoral neck fracture: A retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Fracture of the Femoral Broach Locking Mechanism and Surgical Technique to Retrieve the Broach.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Mitigating calcar fracture risk with automated impaction during total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Use of an Automated Surgical Impactor Reduces Femoral Broaching Time in Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty: Results From a Randomized, Multicenter Study.Arthroplasty today · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: During manual broaching (MB) in total hip arthroplasty (THA), off-axis forces delivered to the proximal femur and broach malalignment can lead to fractures and cortical perforations. Powered broaching (PB) is a novel alternative that delivers consistent impaction forces and reduces workload. This is the first large-scale study to compare intraoperative and 90-day rates of periprosthetic femur fractures (PFFs) and perforations in THA performed using MB vs PB. Methods: Our institutional database was reviewed for all patients undergoing primary cementless direct anterior THA from 2016 to 2021. Three surgeons performing 2048 THAs (MB = 800; PB = 1248) using the same stem design were included. PFFs and perforations within 90 days of the index procedure were compared. Differences in length of surgery and demographics were assessed. Results: Calcar fractures occurred in <1% of patients (PB [0.96%, 12/1248] vs MB [0.25%, 2/800]; Conclusions: Our single-center experience with powered femoral broaching in THA demonstrates PB is a safe and efficient means of performing direct anterior THA. Low rates (<1%) of PFF, perforation, and revision can be achieved. Given our positive experience with PB, all surgeon authors utilize PB nearly exclusively for elective primary direct anterior THA.
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.