MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280527845 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-21-01178

Comparing Outcomes in Cemented and Press-Fit Hemiarthroplasty

2022· article· en· W4280527845 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan Brand, Lidia Ani, Kelsey A. Rankin, William M. McLaughlin, Peter Y. Joo, Don T. Li, Matthew D. Riedel, Michael Leslie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryArthroplastyHazard ratioCohortAmerican society of anesthesiologistsFemoral neckRetrospective cohort studyProportional hazards modelGeriatric traumaImplantInternal medicineOsteoporosisEmergency medicinePoison controlInjury preventionInjury Severity ScoreConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Arthroplasty has become the standard of care for displaced femoral neck fractures in the geriatric cohort. However, details regarding optimal implant design and fixation strategy continue to be debated. We sought to determine whether cemented or press-fit hemiarthroplasties were more advantageous in terms of revision surgery, contralateral hip fractures, hospital length of stay, mortality rates, and survival. METHODS: All geriatric fragility hip fractures at a level 1 trauma center (2014 to 2019) were retrospectively reviewed for the fracture pattern, fixation methodology, and outcome, yielding 707 femoral neck fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty (309 cemented and 398 press fit). The final follow-up was either date of death or final encounter. Major end points were revision surgery, contralateral fracture, and death. A Z-score test of two proportions was used for dichotomous variables, and a two-tailed t -test was used for continuous variables. Cox proportional hazard was used for revision surgery-free survival between groups, adjusting for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists status. RESULTS: Patients who underwent press-fit hemiarthroplasty had a significantly higher rate of revision surgery (7.8% vs 3.9%; P = 0.006). Press-fit cases had a trend toward a decreased risk of contralateral fracture (13% vs 9.8%; P = 0.12), although this did not reach significance. Both groups had similar length of stay ( P = 0.08) and death rates ( P = 0.39). Of those who died, there was a trend toward longer survival in patients who received a press-fit hemiarthroplasty (413 vs 615 days; P < 0.001). There was a trend toward longer survival without repeat surgery in the cemented group without reaching significance (hazard ratio, 0.66 [0.34 to 1.23]; P = 0.201). CONCLUSION: In this study, we found a markedly longer survival time after press-fit hemiarthroplasty, which we believe reflects surgeons' tendencies to cement the femoral prosthesis in patients with more comorbidities. However, press-fit hemiarthroplasties were more likely to result in repeat procedures on the same hip. Displaced geriatric femoral neck fractures may benefit from a cemented rather than press-fit hemiarthroplasty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207