ReviewHip & pelvis2026
A Review of the Variations in Design Features in Diaphyseal Engaging Tapered Fluted Titanium Femoral Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Review in Hip & pelvis, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For femoral reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), cementless, diaphyseal engaging femoral components are the most commonly-used implants. At present, there are no reviews that directly compare the design features of these implants. We performed a manual review of the designs of commercially available diaphyseal engaging femoral stems. We compiled and compared the design features of these implants. Clinical outcomes of modular and monoblock stems were also compared. We identified five modular and four monoblock stems in the manual review of commercial companies manufacturing these stems. Distal stem taper varied from 2° to 3.5°, and the number of splines varied from 8 to 16. The stems varied in their stem lengths, offsets, and surface finish. Although there are no clinically significant differences in the restoration of leg length between monoblock compared to modular stems. The modular stems appear to perform slightly better with respect to subsidence and restoration of leg length. A source of concern for modular stems are mechanical implant failures that occur almost exclusively at modular junctions. Current evidence does not support any difference in dislocation rate, intraoperative or postoperative fracture, aseptic loosening, re-revision rates, or clinical outcomes between monoblock and modular stems. With the knowledge of the distinct features of implants, surgeons must make choices associated with specific design characteristics that could be pivotal to the success of the operation. Our understanding of design differences will help us minimize chances of failure and choose patient-specific implants that will lead to a high rate of success.
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.