ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Stem subsidence in total hip arthroplasty: retrospective investigation of a short stem using a simple measurement approach.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Clinico-Radiographic Outcomes of Cementless Collared Triple Taper Stems in Osteoporotic Patients Undergoing Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Descriptive Analysis.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- In silico analysis of fixation device strain patterns in the postoperative proximal femur: Effects of bone quality during gait.Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2025Article
- Total Hip Arthroplasty vs Hip Resurfacing in Patients Over 65: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- High subsidence rate in primary total hip arthroplasty with a taper wedge stem featuring a three-dimensionally printed porous structure.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUncemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a successful treatment for advanced hip joint diseases. More recently, short stems became increasingly popular, but stem subsidence remains a concern. This study investigates early short stem subsidence in a large patient cohort using a simple measurement approach for everyday practice.
methodsThis retrospective, single center, single implant design study included 1000 patients with primary THA. Subsidence was evaluated using standardized weight-bearing radiographs taken 3-5 days and 2-3 weeks postoperatively with full weight-bearing (FWB). A novel Subsidence Index (SID) was introduced to quantify stem subsidence in a simple and reproducible manner. The SID is calculated by averaging four distinct linear measurements between defined anatomical landmarks on the femur and the implant, captured on standard radiographs without additional software.
resultsOut of all analyzed patients 6% (60/1000) had subsidence of more than 3 mm. The mean subsidence was 1.3 mm (range, 0 to 16.25 mm). There were 0.6% (6) who underwent stem revision for symptomatic subsidence. Men and obese patients had greater subsidence. However, patient age, BMI, stems without lateral bone contact and other demographic factors were not associated with subsidence.
conclusionEarly subsidence is relatively frequent with this uncemented short stem, however revisions are rare. Patients with risk factors should be counseled regarding FWB and radiographic controls should be performed. The SID provides an easy, non-invasive and inexpensive tool for early subsidence assessment; however, its simplicity limits its accuracy. Further research is needed in comparison to more elaborate methods.
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.