MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412362731 · doi:10.1007/s00402-025-05987-6

Biomechanical comparison of cemented versus cementless fixation in intraoperative femoral fractures during total hip arthroplasty

2025· article· en· W4412362731 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ryunosuke Watanabe, Tomofumi Nishino, Tomohiro Yoshizawa, F. Hirose, Shota Yasunaga, Koshiro Shimasaki, Hajime Mishima

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineFixation (population genetics)FemurOrthopedic surgeryInitial stabilityArthroplastyInternal fixationOrthodonticsBiomechanicsSurgeryDentistryImplantAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IPFF) are serious complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA) that occur more frequently with cementless stems than with cemented stems. Although cerclage wiring is commonly used to stabilize IPFFs, the biomechanical effects of subsequent stem fixation methods remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical stability of cemented and cementless stems following cerclage wire fixation in an experimental IPFF model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six fourth-generation composite femurs with simulated Vancouver A2-type fractures were stabilized using a single 1.8 mm cerclage wire. Identical stem designs of polished cemented stems and fully hydroxyapatite-coated cementless stems were implanted in three specimens of each group. After applying a vertical axial load of 2000 N, an additional 40° of internal rotation was imposed. The primary outcome was the maximum torque at the time of fracture. Secondary outcomes included the maximum internal rotation angle, construct stiffness (calculated from force-displacement curves above 1500 N), and peak strain at three positions on the cerclage wire, measured using strain gauges. RESULTS: The maximum torque was significantly higher in the cemented group compared to the cementless group (160.8 ± 24.9 vs. 89.1 ± 18.0 N·m, p = 0.016). Although the differences in stiffness and internal rotation angle were not statistically significant, both trended higher in the cemented group. The peak strain was consistently lower in the cemented group, with a significant difference at the medial side of the fracture line (p = 0.011, Cohen's d = - 3.64). CONCLUSIONS: Cemented stems demonstrated superior biomechanical stability following cerclage wire fixation in the IPFF model, likely because of improved stress distribution via the cement mantle. Therefore, cemented fixation may be a favorable option for managing IPFF during THA.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Orthopaedic and Trauma SurgerySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207