ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
Outcomes of Exeter cemented total hip arthroplasty in a county hospital: survivorship of eight hundred and ninety four hips with a minimum ten-year follow up.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 10-year survival comparison of two cemented implants in primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a New Zealand regional study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Significant functional improvements and radiographic stability following fully cemented total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients: A 2-year prospective study.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Overcoming barriers to interdisciplinary research in engineering and orthopaedic surgery.Bone & joint research · 2025Article
- Long-term implant survival, functional, and radiological assessment of cemented stem in revision hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA total of 894 hips were evaluated to describe the survivorship of Exeter cemented femoral stems and report the outcomes and complications of our 'Exeter- era', and there is no study from Central or Eastern Europe demonstrating similar results.
methodsBetween January 2000 and December 2009, a total of 894 hips were included who underwent Exeter universal and V40 femoral stems with a mean follow up of 13 years. Cemented Exeter low profile polyethylene cups were used in 889 patients (99.4%) cups. Harris hip score (HHS) was used and statistical outcome measures were calculated with revision as an endpoint for aseptic loosening of the stem, aseptic loosening of any component, all-cause revision of the stem, and all-cause revision of the hip.
resultsA total of 103 patients died and 129 (14.4%) operated hips were lost to follow-up before ten years. Out of the 662, ten stems (1.5%) were revised for aseptic loosening. Aseptic loosening of any component was the reason for revision in 43 cases (6.5%), consisting of 40 cup revisions and ten stem exchanges. Periprosthetic fracture occurred in 17 cases (1.9%) Periprosthetic joint infection occurred in 18 cases (2.01%). Three cups were exchanged for recurrent dislocation, and two stems had broken.
conclusionExeter hip system has provided reproducible results across different centres worldwide, as it did in our series. Thorough surgical and cementing technique is of utmost importance for achieving these results. The cup is the weak point of the system and use of a hybrid system is worth considering.
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.