Salvage of failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: clinical and functional outcomes of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric (IT) hip fractures presents a significant challenge in the elderly, osteoporotic population. Conversion total hip arthroplasty (cTHA) and hemiarthroplasty (cHA) are both accepted salvage operations for failed IT fracture fixation, though limited clinical data exist regarding the optimal treatment between these procedures. Methods A systematic review of 3 databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase) was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were English-language studies that compared clinical or functional outcomes after failed fixation of IT fractures with total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in adult subjects (>18 years of age). Data regarding research design, surgical technique, and clinical or functional outcomes were obtained and analyzed from eligible studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model. Results Six studies with 188 patients (100, total hip arthroplasty; 88, hemiarthroplasty) met inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between cTHA and cHA for postoperative dislocation, reoperation, infection, intraoperative fractures, postoperative fractures, or stem subsidence. The mean change in Harris Hip Scores was significantly higher ( P < .001) in the cTHA group (47.5 ± 4.9) than that in the cHA (38.9 ± 7.2) group at minimum 14-month follow-up. Conclusions Despite potential advantages of cTHA or cHA for failed IT fractures, there were no differences in complications between either of the salvage procedures. Our analysis found a slight advantage in functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score) for cTHA at a minimum 14-month follow-up. Our study suggests that cTHA and cHA are both effective salvage procedures. Additional prospective studies are warranted to further delineate outcomes after salvage arthroplasty performed for failed IT fracture fixation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".