ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Femoral stem extraction devices.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionAs the number of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures continues to increase, so too does the demand for revision surgery, with a 43-70% rise in revision THA anticipated by 2030. Femoral stem extraction in revision THA is particularly challenging and may lead to complications like femoral bone loss or fractures. However, increasing catalogue of femoral stems available for primary and revision THA has led technological advances in extraction devices to potentially overcome these limitations. This review aims to discuss the identification of femoral implants and the various femoral stem extraction devices currently available.
methodsA scoping review of current literature was conducted to explore currently available femoral extraction devices. The devices not available in literature but used in clinical practice have also been included. This review focused on the technical components, advantages, and limitations of different femoral extraction tools, including osteotomes, reciprocating saws, high-speed burrs, trephines, and extraction systems like the Watson Extraction System, Exodus Revision Hip System, Shukla Hip Universal Stem Extraction System, and DePuy Synthes Extractors.
resultsIdentifying femoral implants is a critical step in preoperative planning to allow for appropriate equipment to be available during revision surgery. The present review highlights that no single extraction device is universally applicable. Tools like flexible osteotomes, burrs, and trephines offer versatility but may risk bone damage. Advanced systems like the Watson Extraction System and Shukla Hip Universal Stem Extraction System provide more precise extraction, reducing the likelihood of cortical perforations and decreasing operative time.
conclusionsEfficient femoral stem extraction in rTHA is essential for managing complications and preserving bone stock. While traditional tools remain valuable, the development of specialized extraction systems offers improved precision and efficiency. Preoperative planning, including accurate implant identification, and the selection of appropriate extraction devices are crucial for successful outcomes in revision hip arthroplasty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39666065What 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.