ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
No differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes between standard offset and high offset short cementless stems.
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 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.
- Risk Factors of Aseptic Loosening After Total Hip Arthroplasty With Collum Femoris Preserving Stem: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) using standard offset versus high offset short cementless stems.
methodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of 204 primary THAs performed over 5 years using a short cementless collared stem. At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, 6 patients had deceased, 6 were not evaluated radiographically and, 2 were lost to follow-up. This left a final cohort of 190 hips, of which 72 had received a standard offset stem and 118 had received a high offset stem. Outcomes collected included: Oxford hip score (OHS), forgotten joint score (FJS), canal fill ratio (CFR), canal-bone ratio (CBR), stem subsidence (≥ 3 mm), stem misalignment (> 5°), radiolucent lines (≥ 2 mm), cortical hypertrophy, and calcar modifications.
resultsThere were no significant differences in postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes between the standard offset and high offset groups, except for incidence of stems in varus (6% vs 17%; p = 0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that OHS was significantly worse for patients of greater age (β = 0.1; p = 0.001), higher BMI (β = 0.2; p = 0.018), or with inflammatory arthropathy (β = 4.7; p = 0.005); while FJS was significantly worse for patients with higher BMI (β = - 0.7; p = 0.003); and cortical hypertrophy was significantly associated with CBR (OR > 100; p = 0.008).
conclusionsThere were little to no differences in clinical or radiographic outcomes of THA performed using standard offset versus high offset short cementless stems. Although high offset stems are more frequently aligned in varus, while cortical hypertrophy occurs in wider intramedullary canals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39168958What 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.