ArticleScientific reports2025
Biomechanical analysis of a short femoral stem used in revision total hip replacement of a standard femoral stem.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Is the use of primary cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty a reliable option? A systematic review.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (SHA) has become popular because it preserves femoral bone stock and enables the use of short femoral stems in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, no study has evaluated whether a short stem in revision THA, replacing a standard stem, can provide adequate primary stability to facilitate osseous integration. In this biomechanical study, a metaphyseal anchoring SHA (Tri-Lock BPS) stem and a standard THA (Corail) stem were implanted into ten composite femurs and loaded dynamically from 300 to 1700 N with 1 Hz. Primary stability was estimated using three-dimensional (3D) micromotions at five points around the bone-implant interface. A revision scenario was then established by removing the standard stem and implanting the same Tri-Lock BPS stem, with subsequent measurements of 3D micromotions. In the primary scenario, no significant differences in 3D micromotions were noted between the short and standard stems at most of the test points. Compared with the Corail group, the Tri-Lock BPS group presented significantly greater 3D micromotions only at the lateral point of the distal femur (P5: Tri-Lock BPS 32.9 ± 7.54 μm vs. Corail 25.1 ± 4.32 μm; p = 0.011). In the revision scenario, no significant differences in the 3D micromotions were noted between the primary and revision Tri-Lock BPS stems at all test points. Our results show that the SHA (Tri-Lock BPS) offers good primary stability, which is similar to that of the standard THA (Corail). The Tri-Lock BPS stem obtained comparable stability in this revision scenario as in the primary scenario; therefore, it can be assumed that the Corail standard stem can safely be revised with a Tri-Lock BPS short stem.
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.