ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Accuracy of femoral head center reconstruction using a straight cementless rectangular stem: An
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate reconstruction of the femoral head center (FHC) is essential for restoring hip biomechanics in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Previously described age-related morphological changes-such as canal widening and a mediocaudal FHC shift-may complicate anatomical reconstruction in all age-categories using a single non-modular cementless stem. This study assessed the capacity of such implant to achieve adequate FHC reconstruction across age groups and sexes. Methods: Virtual implantation of a non-modular cementless stem (SL-PLUS™) was performed in CT-based 3D reconstructions of 148 femora from middle-aged (<80 years) and very elderly (≥80 years) subjects. For each case, the optimal implant size, type (standard or lateral), and modular head (-4 mm, 0 mm or +4 mm) were selected. FHC deviation was measured in three dimensions; reconstructions were considered adequate if < 5 mm in all directions. Results: Overall, 92.4 % of reconstructions were considered adequate. No significant differences in reconstruction accuracy could be detected between age or sex groups. Very elderly males required significantly larger stem sizes than middle-aged males (mean size 6.4 vs. 5.1; p < 0.001). Lateralized stems were used more frequently in very elderly males (76.0 %) than in middle-aged males (44.4 %; p = 0.001). Reconstruction failure occurred in 11 cases, mostly due to a reduced mediolateral offset in femora with high native ML-offsets and/or low neck-shaft angles (8 out of 11 cases). Conclusions: A single non-modular cementless stem enables satisfactory FHC reconstruction in most patients, regardless of age or sex. However, certain anatomical configurations may exceed its reconstructive capacity. Careful preoperative planning is essential to identify cases that may need an alternative approach.
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.