396 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing the Rate of Post Operative Periprosthetic Fracture Following Hip Arthroplasty with a Polished Taper Slip Versus Composite Beam Stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To compare the incidence of post-operative periprosthetic femoral fractures (POPFF) following hip replacement with either a cemented polished taper stem (PTS) or cemented composite beam stem (CB) in comparative studies. Method A systematic review of comparative studies, written in English, and published in peer-reviewed journals since year 2000 to 2021 was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. Methodology followed the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Cohorts were classified as high or low risk of POPFF based on patient risk factors. Metanalysis was performed using a random effects model and relative incidence with 95% confidence intervals were reported. Results The overall study quality was good. 913,021 patients from 18 cohorts were included in the meta-analysis. 294,540 patients received a CB stem and 618,481 received a PTS stem. For patients at low risk of POPFF the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 3.14 (CI: 2.48, 3.98) for the PTS group versus CB group. For patients at high risk of POPFF the IRR of 9.87 (CI: 3.63, 26.80) for the PTS group versus the CB group. Conclusions The risk of POPFF is lower when hip arthroplasty was performed using a composite beam stem versus a polished taper slip stem. This protective effect was greatest in patients with a higher risk of POPFF. Surgeons should consider the effect of cemented stem choice on risk of subsequent periprosthetic femur fracture, particularly in frail or elderly patients at risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".