MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408998174 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.2.056

THE INCIDENCE OF LATE PERIPROSTHETIC FEMORAL FRACTURES BY IMPLANT TYPE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2025· review· en· W4408998174 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Milos Brkljac, Jack Lovie, Justin Cobb, Kartik Logishetty

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineImplantIncidence (geometry)SurgeryDentistryArthroplastyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the leading cause of reoperation when revision and open reduction internal fixation are considered together. With morbidity and mortality similar to hip fractures, prevention is paramount. A growing body of evidence has identified polished taper slip (PTS) cemented designs as high risk and collars as protective in cementless designs. The fracture risk of other cementation philosophies is less clear, and how cementless designs compare when intra and early postoperative fractures are excluded. We compared the incidence of late PFFs following THA across all stem types that occurred at a minimum of three months postoperatively. We conducted a systematic review of studies, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals since the year 2000. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was utilised to assess study quality. The overall study qualities were good. 28,854 hips from 28 articles were included in the systematic review. 19,552 were cemented and 9,302 were cementless. We classified stems into subtypes to compare similar designs. Articles were excluded if intraoperative and fractures within three months could not be removed. French paradox cemented stems had the lowest fracture risk when data was pooled, and an incidence per 100 years was calculated (2/974, 0.03% per 100 years). PTS stems had the highest risk (191/17235, 1.1%), ahead of composite beam (CB) stems (2/1343, 0.1%). Within PTS, CPT (9/386, 0.55%) and C Stems (12/583, 0.37%) had over triple the fracture risk of the ExeterV40 (68/6979, 0.10%). The overall fracture rate of cementless stems was 0.8% regardless of stem design (72/9302), compared to 1% in cemented (195/19522). There is a paucity of studies comparing the late PFF risk of different successfully implanted stems designs. The late PPF risk of cementless stems is lower than that of cemented stems. French Paradox and CB stems had lower late PPF risk than PTS, though fewer data are available describing their use. Reducing the rising burden of PFFs globally will be multifaceted, however, selecting implants with protective design features will form a cornerstone of any approach.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207