| Title |
Medium-term outcomes of the S-ROM modular femoral stem in revision hip replacement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00590-018-2213-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jesús Moreta, Iker Uriarte, Xabier Foruria, Ane Loroño, Urko Agirre, Iñaki Jáuregui, José Luis Martínez-de los Mozos |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to analyse results achieved with the S-ROM modular stem in revision surgery. A retrospective observational study was conducted from 2007 to 2015 including 51 patients who had a follow-up of ≥ 2 years and complete medical history. The mean age was 66.5 years old (34-87). The main reason for revision was aseptic loosening (38 cases, 74.5%), followed by infection (10, 19.6%), instability (2, 3.9%) and an adverse reaction associated with a metal-on-metal hip implant (1, 2%). Using the Paprosky classification, there were 22 cases of type I (43.1%), 27 of type II (52.9%) and 2 of type IIIA (4%). At the end of the follow-up, radiological parameters were assessed using Engh's criteria. Pre- and postoperative clinical status was assessed using the Harris Hip Score, a visual analogue scale and the Merle D'Aubigné score. The mean follow-up period was 5.7 years (2-10). The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 45.5 points (22-65) to 85.8 (55-100) (p < 0.001), and the final mean Merle D'Aubigné scores were 5.2, 4.6 and 5.6 for pain, ability to walk and mobility, respectively. Osseointegration was confirmed in all except one patient with fibrous non-union. No aseptic loosening has been recorded. Postoperative complications were deep infection in four cases (7.8%) and dislocation in three (5.9%). This study indicates good medium-term outcomes using a modular hip replacement system with porous-coated proximal sleeves in revision surgery in patients with Paprosky type I and II defects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 36% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Design | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,506,823
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#329
of 883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,057
of 326,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.