Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Properly designed femoral stem impactors help to avoid overstuffing and make a second trial reduction unnecessary.
Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor cementless implantation of hip stems, it is very important that the original stem fits exactly into the femoral prosthesis bed previously shaped using a stem rasp. If the geometry of the stem rasp does not match the prosthesis geometry, this can result in either overstuffing or post-sintering of the original stem in relation to trial reduction with the stem rasp. Overstuffing results in leg lengthening, while subsidence of the stem results in shortening with the risk of dislocation and impingement. Trial reduction with the original stem and trial head can prevent this, but is associated with additional soft tissue trauma and a longer operating time. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree groups were prospectively randomized. Group 0 was treated with the Fitmore B stem and the conventional rasp system, Group 1 with the Optimys stem and Group 2 with the Fitmore B stem with a new, optimized rasp system via a minimally invasive posterolateral approach. Intraoperatively, the differences in leg length and offset between trial reduction with the stem rasp and the original stem were recorded using a hip navigation system.
resultsThe conventional rasp system led to significant overstuffing (1.2 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.024) with the Fitmore B stem, compared with the instruments of the Optimys stem. In contrast, the optimized rasp system with the Fitmore B stem resulted in an equally precise fit of the endoprosthesis to that achieved with Optimys.
conclusionThere are relevant differences in the fit of rasp and original stem between different manufacturers and system evolutions. In order to ensure reproducible comparability of the fit of the original stem to the trial rasp, it is imperative that trial rasps are optimally adapted to the stems. This is an important way to avoid trial reduction after implantation of the original stem.
trial registrationThis study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien) with the registration number DRKS00026749.
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.