ArticleArthroplasty today2023
Early Radiographic Fit and Fill Analysis of a New Metaphyseal-Filling Triple Taper Stem Designed Using a Large Computed Tomography Scan Database.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty using a short metaphyseal filling collared femoral implant through a direct anterior approach: minimum two-year outcomes.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Time-zero stability of uncemented standard versus intermediate revision stems after extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO): a biomechanical study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Two-Dimensional Preoperative Digital Templating is Less Accurate When Using a Collared Triple Taper Stem Versus a Single Taper Design.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Optimal Bone Preparation for Triple-Tapered Stems: Does the Sagittal Taper Affect Optimal Femoral Sizing?Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Impact of surgical approaches on stem position and hidden blood loss in total hip arthroplasty: minimally invasive vs. posterolateral.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Numerous cementless stems are available to maximize implant stability, fit, and survivorship in total hip arthroplasty. Recently, a new metaphyseal-filling triple-taper collared stem was designed using femoral morphology data obtained from over 1300 computed tomography scans. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiographic fit and fill of this new stem in the coronal and sagittal dimensions. Methods: In this retrospective review, postoperative radiographs of patients receiving this new stem were analyzed in accordance with previously published fit and fill analyses. All radiographs were taken 6 weeks postoperatively. Means and standard deviations were reported for all fit and fill parameters. Results: Fifty-nine hips were analyzed from 55 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. The coronal proximal fill was 85.02 ± 8.06%, and coronal distal fill was 75.21 ± 9.71%. The sagittal proximal fill was 86.51 ± 8.77%, and sagittal distal fill was 59.17 ± 8.66%. Mean calcar collar coverage was 80.64 ± 19.6% and all patients had full seating of the collar. Six cases (10.2%) had a collar length greater than the calcar length, with a mean collar overhang of 0.7 ± 0.4 mm. Conclusions: This new stem demonstrated significant proximal fill in both the coronal and sagittal planes and validates the design intent of this implant. This is the first study to evaluate sagittal fit and fill of a femoral stem. Long-term follow-up is required to understand the clinical impact these fit and fill characteristics may have on patients' long-term outcomes.
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.