Cemented versus uncemented arthroplasty for the management of femoral neck fractures in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty (TKA) are commonly used to treat unstable femoral neck fractures in older patients. However, there is no consensus on the use of cement during hemiarthroplasty and TKA. Previous reviews on this subject included small number of studies and lacked evidence grading of outcomes. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes of cemented and uncemented arthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in older patients. Methods A meta-analysis was conducted according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration using online databases (Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) of cemented arthroplasty versus uncemented arthroplasty for treatment of femoral neck fractures were analyzed using Review Manager (version 5.2) software. Results Sixteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Cemented arthroplasty was found to be superior to uncemented arthroplasty with respect to reoperation rate, complications related to prosthesis, residual pain, and operation time. There were no significant between-group differences with respect to local and general complications, duration of hospital stay, hip function, and mortality. Conclusion Compared with cemented arthroplasty, uncemented arthroplasty was associated with a greater risk of complications related to prosthesis, reoperation rate, residual pain, and longer operation time. However, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted cautiously owing to some limitations. Further studies are required to provide more robust 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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".