ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
The use of an ultrasonic cement removal device in revision hip and knee arthroplasty-A matched case-control study.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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.
- A New Technique for Placing Pedicle Screws Into Bone Cement-Strengthened Vertebrae Involving Drilling and Melting.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- The use of an ultrasonic cement removal device in revision hip and knee arthroplasty-A matched case-control study.Journal of experimental 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this case series was to investigate the effect of ultrasound-guided cement removal devices on operating time and patient safety in the revision of cemented knee and hip arthroplasties. Methods: A total of 11 cases were examined in which ultrasound-guided cement extraction was utilised for implant removal. The primary endpoint of the study was the duration of the surgery. Additionally, the cohort was analysed for the occurrence of intraoperative fractures or postoperative ossification. Postoperative laboratory dynamics of haemoglobin and C-reactive protein levels were also investigated. A matched group of 11 patients who underwent revision arthroplasty using conventional techniques to remove bone cement served as the reference group. Results: Ultrasound-guided removal of cement from the medullary canal was associated with a significantly longer operation time (187.19 min ± 54.4 vs. 121.91 min ± 43.5, ( Conclusion: A comparison between the two groups reveals a significant increase in surgical duration when cement removal was performed using ultrasound-guided technique. Simultaneously, the use of an ultrasound-assisted system for cement removal did not mitigate the risk of intraoperative bone perforation. Based on the data presented in this study, the authors cannot conclude that the use of ultrasound-guided devices for the removal of cement residues from the medullary canal during revision surgery is superior to conventional techniques. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.