ArticleArthroplasty today2025
Performance of Cementless Hip Arthroplasty Stem Types Based on Consolidated Large Registry Data.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2025. 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.
- Multicentre outcomes of total hip arthroplasty using a novel collared cementless femoral stem.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Accuracy of femoral head center reconstruction using a straight cementless rectangular stem: AnJournal of orthopaedics · 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
Background: Improvements in cementless total hip arthroplasty have been directed at optimizing osseointegration of the femoral implant to reduce aseptic loosening rates. Stem design plays a critical role in the performance of these implants. Given the increase in new stem designs and the creation of an updated classification system, improved understanding of the outcomes of each stem type is warranted. The purpose of this study was to determine overall revision rates based on stem design and proprietary model. Methods: Joint registry data on the reported overall cases and revisions for each cementless stem brand were collected from the annual reports of the American Joint Replacement Registry (2021), United Kingdom National Joint Registry (2021), New Zealand Joint Registry (2020), and Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2021). Each individual stem brand was classified into a stem type derived from the classification system described by Radaelli et al. Results: The most utilized stem types were (1) type B2 stems, (2) type A stems, and (3) type C1 stems. The most utilized stem models were the (1) Corail stem (B2), (2) Accolade II (type A), and (3) Taperloc 133 (type A). The highest and lowest overall revision rates observed were in the type B1 stems (8.09%) and type C3 stems (1.12%), respectively. The 3 stem models with the highest overall revision rates were the Synergy HA stem (9.04%), CBC stem (8.59%), and CLS stem (7.96%). The 3 stems with the lowest respective overall revision rates were the C2 stem (0.00%, 0 of 933 cases), Actis Duofix (0.59%), and VerSys stem (0.89%). Conclusions: Based on consolidated large registry data, some cementless femoral stem types and models appear to perform better than others when compared on the basis of stem design.
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.