ReviewEFORT open reviews2025
Short-stem-ology: personal 25-year experience with short stems.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 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.
- Bone-Sparing Hip Arthroplasty in Young and Active Patients: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scepticism is still the most common attitude of orthopaedic surgeons toward short stems, despite the excellent survival rate reported in the International Registry, together with an acceptable complication risk. In surgical centres where these types of implants are commonly utilised, they account for a significant percentage of procedures (up to 50% of total hip replacements performed). Potential benefits of bone preservation were evident from the very early phase of introduction. Some complications have been experienced, especially with modular short stems. Some limitations and weak points during the evolution from early designs to modern short stems have been identified. With few exceptions, clinical results and survivorship were very good, despite widened indications (age- and pathology-related), giving an overall retrospective evaluation of our experience with short stems similar to primary hip implants. Failure of short stems is mostly related to the validity of bone preservation in terms of revision strategy. Standard surgical revision was generally performed with two-stage revisions in PJI and stem revision in periprosthetic fracture.
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.