Arthroplasty Versus Internal Fixation for the Treatment of Undisplaced Femoral Neck Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the 24-month risk of mortality between arthroplasty and internal fixation for undisplaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Secondary data analysis of 2 multinational randomized controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 years or older with a FNF. INTERVENTION: Arthroplasty (n = 1441), including total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty, performed for a displaced FNF versus internal fixation (n = 734), including sliding hip screw or multiple cancellous screws, performed for an undisplaced FNF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome was mortality within 24 months of injury. Secondary outcomes included reoperation and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The 24-month mortality rate was 15.0% (n = 327). Arthroplasty was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.72, P < 0.01] compared with treatment with internal fixation. 11.4% (n = 248) of the study patients required reoperation within 24 months of injury. The odds of reoperation were 59% lower with arthroplasty treatment than with internal fixation (aOR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.32-0.55, P < 0.01). The 24-month SF-12 physical component scores were 2.7 points higher in arthroplasty patients compared with internal fixation patients (95% CI: 1.6-3.8, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest arthroplasty for a FNF may reduce the risk of mortality and reoperation compared with internal fixation of undisplaced fractures. This finding is counter to many current surgical practices but consistent with a mounting body of evidence. Before widespread adoption of arthroplasty for undisplaced fractures, these results should be confirmed in a definitive comparative trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".