ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2026
Biomechanical effects of varus stem alignment on a cementless metadiaphyseal anchoring hip stem: a biomechanical investigation.
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgical approaches have become standard in cementless hip arthroplasty; however, the recent literature still lacks biomechanical evidence regarding the effects of stem malpositioning. This study aimed to biomechanically evaluate the stability of a cementless metadiaphyseal anchoring stem implanted with a varus malposition versus a neutral alignment.
methodsTwenty paired human cadaveric femora were assigned pairwise for stem implantation featuring either 8° varus malposition (Group 1) or neutral orientation (Group 2). All specimens underwent quasi-static testing and progressively increasing cyclic loading to failure with monitoring via motion tracking.
resultsAxial stiffness in Group 1 was significantly lower than in Group 2, p = 0.023. Implant size in Group 1 was significantly smaller than that in Group 2, p = 0.002. Load at 0.15 mm stem subsidence and cycles to 0.15 mm subsidence in Group 1 were not significantly different compared to Group 2, p = 0.214. Load at 1 mm subsidence and cycles to 1 mm subsidence in Group 1 were significantly higher than those in Group 2, p = 0.022.
conclusionAn 8° varus-aligned cementless metadiaphyseal anchoring hip stem demonstrates superior load-bearing capacity with higher loads and numbers of cycles until reaching defined subsidence thresholds under dynamic loading, as compared to neutral alignment. These results demonstrate the biomechanical tolerance of unintended intraoperative varus malalignment, but do not support or recommend intentional varus stem positioning.
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.