Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38276110›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Cementless Primary Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.

Francesco Castagnini, Francesco Pardo, Stefano Lucchini, Marco Rotini, Bruno Cavalieri, Mattia Dalla Rosa, Stefano Vitacca, Alberto Di Martino, Cesare Faldini, Francesco Traina

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Francesco CastagniniOrtopedia-Traumatologia e Chirurgia Protesica e dei Reimpianti d'Anca e di Ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3567-9194
Francesco PardoOrtopedia-Traumatologia e Chirurgia Protesica e dei Reimpianti d'Anca e di Ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Stefano LucchiniOrtopedia-Traumatologia e Chirurgia Protesica e dei Reimpianti d'Anca e di Ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4264-3827
Marco RotiniOrtopedia-Traumatologia e Chirurgia Protesica e dei Reimpianti d'Anca e di Ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Bruno CavalieriOrtopedia-Traumatologia e Chirurgia Protesica e dei Reimpianti d'Anca e di Ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Mattia Dalla RosaOrtopedia-Traumatologia e Chirurgia Protesica e dei Reimpianti d'Anca e di Ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Stefano VitaccaOrtopedia-Traumatologia e Chirurgia Protesica e dei Reimpianti d'Anca e di Ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Alberto Di Martino1st Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0716-4951
Cesare Faldini1st Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Francesco TrainaOrtopedia-Traumatologia e Chirurgia Protesica e dei Reimpianti d'Anca e di Ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0196-101X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cementless primary stems in revision hip arthroplasties may be conservative options to preserve bone stock and provide adequate reconstruction of the hip biomechanics. However, there is still little evidence about indications, limitations, and outcomes. This narrative review showed that conventional standard stems were adopted in different revision settings, up to Paprosky IIIA grade bone defects. In cases of acceptable metaphyseal bone stock, when a scratch fit of at least 4 cm can be achieved, a conventional cementless stem may be an adequate solution. Mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and survival rates were similar to long revision stems, whereas complications, surgical time, and costs were lower among conventional stems. However, unsuitable contexts for conventional stems included canal diameters larger than 18 mm and failed revision stems with cortical weakening. Even short stems can be considered in revisions, in order to preserve bone stock and stay proximal to femoral remodeling zones and bone/cement plugs. Short stems were successfully adopted up to Paprosky IIIA bone defects, achieving mid-term survival rates not inferior to long revision stems. Ageing, osteoporosis, and intraoperative femoral fractures were the main negative prognostic factors. In very select cases, a downsizing technique (from longer to shorter stems) may be adopted to simplify the procedure and reduce complications.

Indexed as

canal flareconservativeconventionalde-escalationdownsizingprimaryrevisionshort stemtapered

Identifiers

PMID38276110
PMCPMC10816713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.