ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Equivalent revision rates and patient reported outcomes with routine use of a short (125mm) cemented stem for total hip arthroplasty compared to a standard length (150mm) cemented stem. A two surgeon series of 1335 patients.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical analysis of a short femoral stem used in revision total hip replacement of a standard femoral stem.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mid-term outcomes after primary total hip arthroplasty with a cemented short stem in an elderly patient cohort.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a short cemented stem as compared with a standard length cemented stem may have benefits in terms of stress distribution, bone preservation, stem subsidence and ease of revision surgery. Two senior arthroplasty surgeons transitioned their routine femoral implant from a standard 150 mm Exeter V40 cemented stem to a short 125 mm Exeter V40 cemented stem for all patients over the course of several years. We analysed revision rates, adjusted survival, and PROMS scores for patients who received a standard stem and a short stem in routine THA.
methodsAll THAs performed by the two surgeons between January 2011 and December 2021 were included. All procedures were performed using either a 150 mm or 125 mm Exeter V40 stem. Demographic data, acetabular implant type, and outcome data including implant survival, reason for revision, and post-operative Oxford Hip Scores were obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR), and detailed survival analyses were performed. Primary outcome was revision for any reason. Reason for revision, including femoral or acetabular failure, and time to revision were also recorded.
results1335 THAs were included. 516 using the 150 mm stem and 819 using the 125 mm stem. There were 4055.5 and 3227.8 component years analysed in the standard stem and short stem groups respectively due to a longer mean follow up in the 150 mm group. Patient reported outcomes were comparable across all groups. Revision rates were comparable between the standard 150 mm stem (0.44 revisions/100 component years) and the short 125 mm stem (0.56 revisions/100 component years) with no statistically significant difference found (p = 0.240).
conclusionRoutine use of a short 125 mm stem had no statistically significant impact on revision rate or PROMS scores when compared to a standard 150 mm stem. There may be benefits to routine use of a short cemented femoral implant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38581441What 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.