MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411008628 · doi:10.1111/os.70056

Dual‐ vs. Single‐Antibiotic Loaded Cement for Hip Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4411008628 on OpenAlex
Cara Mohammed, Zuzanna Sandhu, Anjani Mahesh Kumar Cherukuri, Jeries Sayegh Adeeb Khouri, Kabilesh Jothilingam, Seba Sayed Muhammed, Zain Elahi, Muhammad Ehsan, Lawrence Sena Tuglo, Raakesh Goalan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineCementBone cementSurgeryAntibioticsDentistryInternal medicineMaterials scienceComposite materialMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Antibiotic‐loaded cement (ALC) is often used to reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in hip hemiarthroplasty; however, controversy exists regarding the use of dual antibiotic‐loaded cement (DALC) and single antibiotic‐loaded cement (SALC). Objective This systematic review and meta‐analysis compare the efficacy of DALC and SALC for hip hemiarthroplasty. Methods For this systematic review, a search was undertaken in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Grey literature such as ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (PQDT) was also explored. The inclusion criteria comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative observational studies, and patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty with DALC or SALC. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and RoB 2.0 tools were used for risk of bias assessment in observational and RCTs, respectively. Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4.1; The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used for statistical analysis. The primary outcome was the incidence of deep SSIs. Results A total of five articles, including 28,418 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Three of the included studies were retrospective studies, one quasi‐randomized study, and one RCT. The primary outcome revealed that DALC was associated with a statistically significant reduction in deep SSIs compared to SALC (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29–0.76; p = 0.002; I 2 = 27%). Subgroup analysis based on the study design did not show a significant difference for deep SSIs ( p = 0.29). The majority of the secondary outcomes, such as superficial SSIs, mortality, participants with ≥ 1 complication, or antibiotic use, did not show any significant difference. However, DALC significantly lowered the risk of any infection (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38–0.79; p = 0.001; I 2 = 27%). Conclusion In conclusion, DALC can significantly reduce the risk of SSIs and the overall rate of any infection in hip hemiarthroplasty. A limitation of this study is that RCTs were pooled with observational studies, which decreased the power of analysis. Therefore, further research, including large RCTs, is needed to validate these findings.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.263 · 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