To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Composite-beam and sliding-taper prostheses show no difference in femoral bone loss

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
March 2013

Composite-beam and sliding-taper prostheses show no difference in femoral bone loss

Vol: 2| Issue: 2| Number:233| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Effect of sliding-taper compared with composite-beam cemented femoral prosthesis loading regime on proximal femoral bone remodeling: a randomized clinical trial

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jan 2;95(1):19-27. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00657

Contributing Authors:
RL Jayasuriya SC Buckley AJ Hamer RM Kerry I Stockley MW Tomouk JM Wilkinson

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

120 patients were randomized to evaluate whether the geometry of the cemented femoral prosthesis affected the pattern of strain-adaptive bone remodelling in the proximal aspect of the femur following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients received either composite-beam or sliding-taper (double and triple-tapered) prostheses and were assessed at 2 years. Results indicated that the magnitude and reg...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue