Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41223040›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2025

Short-stem-ology: personal 25-year experience with short stems.

Filippo Casella, Gianluca Mazzotta, Fabio Favetti, Matteo Papalia, Gabriele Panegrossi, Massimo Spinelli, Francesco Falez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Filippo CasellaSan Filippo Neri Hospital, Orthopaedic Division, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7915-7753
Gianluca MazzottaSan Filippo Neri Hospital, Orthopaedic Division, Rome, Italy.
Fabio FavettiSanta Rosa/Belcolle Hospital, Orthopaedic Division, Viterbo, Italy.
Matteo PapaliaNuova Itor Hospital, Orthopaedic Division, Rome, Italy.
Gabriele PanegrossiSanto Spirito Hospital, Orthopaedic Division, Rome, Italy.
Massimo SpinelliSan Filippo Neri Hospital, Orthopaedic Division, Rome, Italy.
Francesco FalezHealth Care & Research Foundation, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3233-5468

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bone preservationfollow upshort stems

Identifiers

PMID41223040
PMCPMC12139602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.