Comparison of Cylindrical and Tapered Stem Designs for Femoral Revision Hip Arthroplasty.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Revision Hip Arthroplasty with a Single-Taper Cementless Conical Revision Stem: Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of 57 Implants.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026
   Observational
2. Monoblock or modular? Impact of stem design and conicity angle on long-term implant survival in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 20-year follow-up registry study on 3647 implants.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
   Article
3. Periprosthetic Fracture After Cementless Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Tapered, Fluted Monobloc Stem: A Retrospective Long-Term Analysis of 121 Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
   Article

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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as