Comparative Effectiveness of Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of older patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture remains a controversial topic. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes across a matched group of patients with a femoral neck fracture treated with either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Routinely collected health-care databases were linked to create a population-based cohort of 49,597 patients ≥60 years old from Ontario, Canada, who underwent hemiarthroplasty or THA for a femoral neck fracture between 2002 and 2017. A propensity-score-matched cohort was created using relevant and available predictors of treatment assignment and outcomes of interest. Clinical outcomes consisting of hip dislocation, revision surgery, hospital readmission, and death were compared in the matched cohort using survival analysis. RESULTS: Over 99% of THA patients (4,612) were adequately matched 1:1 to hemiarthroplasty patients (total matched cohort = 9,224). Patients treated with THA were at higher risk for hip dislocation at 30 days and 1 and 2 years postoperatively (2-year risk, 1.8% for THA versus 0.8% for hemiarthroplasty; p < 0.001). There was no difference in the short-term (30-day) or long-term (up to 10-year) risk of revision surgery between treatment groups. There was no significant difference in the risk of 30-day hospital readmission between groups. The risk of death at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively was lower for patients treated with THA. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with a hip fracture, shared decision-making should involve discussion of the potential higher risk of short-term hip dislocation after THA compared with hemiarthroplasty. The risk of revision surgery was similar between treatment groups at up to 10 years of follow-up. 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 | 0.001 | 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".