MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197395390 · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000001952

Does the Risk of Death Within 48 Hours of Hip Hemiarthroplasty Differ Between Patients Treated with Cemented and Cementless Implants? A Meta-analysis of Large, National Registries

2021· review· en· W3197395390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ola E. Dahl, Are Hugo Pripp

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeArthroplastyContext (archaeology)Hip fractureFemoral neckMEDLINESurgeryOsteoarthritisBone cementCohort studyPhysical therapyOsteoporosisInternal medicineCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although current recommendations suggest that hip hemiarthroplasties performed for femoral neck fractures be implanted with bone cement, it is known to cause cardiorespiratory and hemodynamic reactions that in some patients can be fatal. Older patients may be at particular risk of this complication, but because of its relative infrequency, large studies-perhaps even larger than can be achieved in the context of single-country national registries-are needed to get reasonably precise estimates as to its frequency. Pooling results from national registries reporting on death within 48 hours of cement exposure in this setting may therefore be helpful. QUESTION/PURPOSE: In a systematic review of studies based on large national registries, we asked: Does the risk of death within 48 hours of hip hemiarthroplasty differ between patients treated with cemented and cementless implants? METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase data sources were searched for cohort studies on patients with hip fractures treated with cement or cementless hip hemiprostheses based on results from national registries that tracked perioperative deaths within 48 hours of surgery, from 2010 or later (to include only studies that used contemporary cement techniques). We excluded registry research on elective THAs for other indications (such as degenerative joint disease), mixed populations (registries that combined patients having arthroplasty for fracture and for other diagnoses like osteoarthritis, such that we could not separate them), and overlapping data from the same registers (to avoid double and triple publications of similar data). Five studies met our inclusion criteria. The cohorts ranged from about 11,000 to about 25,000 patients. About 31% of the patients were in the cementless group. Two studies reported the age ranges of participating patients, and three studies communicated mean ages (which were 82 years for both sexes). Twice as many females as males were present in both the cemented and cementless group. When reported, more than 50% in both groups were in the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification 3 or 4. Study quality was deemed good according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and the Egger test, and study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 heterogeneity statistic and Cochran Q heterogeneity test. There was some heterogeneity between the studies, with a Cochran Q statistics of 8.13 (degrees of freedom = 4; p = 0.08) and an I2 statistic of 50.8%. There was evidence for a small amount of publication bias (Egger test; p = 0.02). The pooled risk ratio (RR) from a random-effects model is presented with 95% confidence intervals. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of any fatalities within 48 hours of hip fracture treatment with cementless compared with cemented prostheses. We performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the needed association of a potential unmeasured or uncontrolled confounding, and we made an estimate of the amount of unmeasured confounding that would need to be present in order to change the direction of the result. We summarized this using a parameter known as the "E-value." Based on that sensitivity analysis, we found it unlikely that an unmeasured hypothetical confounder could explain the significant association between cemented and cementless implants and risk of death within 48 hours of hip hemiarthroplasty. RESULTS: Compared with the cementless group, mortality was increased in the cemented group (RR 1.63 [95% CI 1.31 to 2.02]; p < 0.001). The number needed to harm from the pooled data was 1 of 183 operated patients; that is, for every 183 patients treated with cemented implants, one death would be expected. CONCLUSION: Bone cement is associated with a higher risk of fatalities within 48 hours of surgery compared with cementless prostheses. However, numerous prior studies have found a higher risk of serious complications resulting in additional surgical procedures associated with cementless devices in this population; those complications, as well, may result in death. Based on our study alone, we cannot recommend cementless implants in this setting. Large, national registries should evaluate fixation choice in older patients with hip fractures, and those studies should consider both early death and the potential for later harms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207