ReviewAnnals of joint2024
Last generation fluted modular titanium stem in revision hip arthroplasty: a narrative review of mid- and long-term outcomes.
Review in Annals of joint, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do modular tapered long stems differ in stability and function? A prospective comparison of two stems in complex femoral revision THA.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026Trial
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Tapered fluted titanium stems (TFTS), were introduced to overcome proximal femur bone defects. They obtain stable fixation even in catastrophic proximal bone loss. Modular ones have the advantage to adjust length, rotation, off-set independently from the distal module. Short-term publications have been showing favorable outcomes burdened by an unacceptably high rate of stem failure. Still, there is a paucity of mid- and long-term reports. This narrative review aims at analyzing recent literature on modular TFTS with at least 5 years of minimum follow-up to gain a better understanding of implant survival, performance, and complications. Methods: A search of the PubMed database was performed with selected key terms. Results were screened after the application of strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Extracted data were subsequently evaluated to obtain an up-to-date overview of the results and complications of TFTS. Key Content and Findings: Modular TFTS showed a consistent increase in patient reported outcomes that persists at 10 years and above. Femoral fractures were the most common intraoperative complication. Despite modularity, dislocation still occurs at a variable rate (1.2-12%). With revision for any cause as an endpoint, overall survival approaches 83% after 10 years of follow-up. If femoral revision only is evaluated, excellent survival rates (>95%) have been published. Stem subsidence over 5 mm was reported in less than 5% of patients, only 1 requiring femoral revision. The mean incidence of stem mechanical failure was 3.39%, although most breakages occurred in stems eventually retired from the market. Conclusions: Satisfactory survival rates were observed, with an acceptable rate of complications. Stem mechanical failure, excluding those stems eventually retired from the market, remains a marginal event. Therefore, the use of modular TFTS in revision surgery is safe and effective even in the long term.
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.