ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Monoblock or modular? Impact of stem design and conicity angle on long-term implant survival in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 20-year follow-up registry study on 3647 implants.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRevision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) often requires femoral stem revision due to aseptic loosening, instability, or fractures. Long, tapered conical stems are preferred for stability and bone loss management. Recent design changes, like increased conicity angles, aim to enhance fixation and reduce subsidence. Monoblock and modular stems offer distinct pros and cons, but their long-term outcomes remain debated. This study evaluates the long-term survival of monoblock versus modular conical stems, with a focus on conicity angles (2° vs. 3°), using 20 years of registry data.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted using the Emilia Romagna Registry of Orthopedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO) from 2000 to 2021. A total of 3,647 non-cemented conical stems used in rTHA were analyzed: 32.4% monoblock and 67.6% modular. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis assessed implant longevity, stratified by stem design and conicity angle.
resultsUse of modular stems increased from 24% to over 83% during the study period. Overall failure rate was 6.3–5.1% for monoblock stems (mainly due to aseptic loosening) and 6.9% for modular stems (primarily due to instability). Monoblock stems had superior 20-year survival (93.7%) compared to modular (86.8%, p = 0.009). Among modular stems, those with 2° conicity had significantly better 15-year survival (91.9%) than 3° designs (88.0%, p = 0.001). No significant difference was observed between conicity angles in monoblock stems.
conclusionMonoblock stems provide better long-term survival in rTHA. Modular designs, while offering intraoperative flexibility, carry higher revision risk, especially with greater conicity. Stem selection should balance design features with patient needs and surgical expertise.
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.