Trial reportJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2026
Do modular tapered long stems differ in stability and function? A prospective comparison of two stems in complex femoral revision THA.
Trial report in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRevision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in the setting of substantial proximal femoral bone loss is technically challenging. Modular tapered fluted stems provide predictable diaphyseal fixation while allowing independent adjustment of version, offset, and limb length. Among these, two commonly used systems-modular tapered fluted stem Type A (Revitan
methodsIn this single-center randomized prospective study, 110 patients undergoing femoral revision rTHA were randomly assigned to receive either Type A (n = 55) or Type B (n = 55) stems. All procedures were performed by experienced revision surgeons under standardized perioperative and rehabilitation protocols. Radiographs were analyzed for stem subsidence, osseointegration, and limb-length restoration. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and European Quality of Life Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) at baseline and final follow-up (mean 61.4 months). Complications and stem survivorship were recorded prospectively. Statistical analysis included paired and unpaired comparisons, correlation, regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates.
resultsBaseline demographics and femoral defect severity were comparable. Both groups achieved high radiological stability, with mean distal subsidence of 1.3 ± 0.7 mm (Type A) and 1.5 ± 0.9 mm (Type B; p = 0.24), and osseointegration in > 92% of cases. Limb-length and offset restoration were similar. HHS improved significantly in both groups (Type A: 44.7 → 88.1; Type B: 45.1 → 87.3; p < 0.001), with > 80% achieving good-to-excellent outcomes. Complication rates were low and comparable. Five-year stem survivorship was 98.2% (Type A) and 97.6% (Type B). Early full weight-bearing and lower Paprosky defect grades independently predicted superior functional outcomes, whereas stem type did not.
conclusionsBoth Type A and Type B modular tapered fluted stems demonstrated durable fixation, minimal subsidence, low complication rates, and excellent mid-term functional recovery. Radiographic stem subsidence did not differ between groups, indicating that design variations do not significantly affect clinical outcomes. These findings support the use of modular tapered fluted stems as reliable solutions in complex femoral rTHA.
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.