ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2025
Modular and Non-modular Conical Tapered Stems in Total Hip Arthroplasty for Crowe III and IV Hip Dysplasia.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2025. 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
Background: Conical stems are effective in total hip arthroplasty for high-degree dysplasia, but no comparative studies about modular and non-modular versions are available. By comparing 3 conical stems in 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT)-based simulations in Crowe III and IV dysplasia, the study sought to assess the rate of implants allowing correct biomechanical reconstruction and the correlations between the 3 stem reconstructions and native hip morphology. Methods: Using a 3D CT-based simulation, 3 different conical stems (single-taper, modular neck, and proximal junction modularity) were implanted in the same high-degree dysplastic hips. Proximal biomechanical restorations (femoral fitting, combined anteversion, offset reconstruction, leg lengthening, and tilt) were compared, and correlations with native anatomy were assessed. After a power analysis, 61 hips in 55 patients were included, with a mean age at CT of 56.26 ± 10.71 years: 41 hips (67.21%) were classified as Crowe III and 20 (32.79%) as Crowe IV. Results: The rate of global acceptability (matching all 6 reconstructive parameters) was similar between the 3 stems: W, 52.5%; A, 47.5%; and M, 55.7% ( Conclusions: Similar proximal biomechanical reconstructions were provided by modular and non-modular stems: modular stems should be used with caution even in high-grade dysplastic hips, but may be useful in high offset anatomies.
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.