MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415588378 · doi:10.2340/17453674.2025.44751

Trends and predictors of cemented fixation in arthroplasty for patients with a hip fracture: a Canadian Joint Replacement Registry study

2025· article· en· W4415588378 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christiaan H. Righolt, Colton Poitras, Gavin Wood, Éric Bohm

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of ManitobaConcordia HospitalOrthopaedic Innovation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArthroplastyHip arthroplastyFixation (population genetics)Hip replacementJoint arthroplastyArthroplasty replacementHip fractureOrthopedic surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cemented fixation is widely recommended during arthroplasty for hip fractures, yet it has not been universally adopted by all surgeons and hospitals. We aimed to identify which factors were associated with a higher likelihood of cemented fixation. METHODS: We identified patients ≥ 55 years old with hip fractures treated with primary arthroplasty in Canada between 2012 and 2022. We determined fixation method along with several surgeon and hospital characteristics from the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry and other Canadian databases. We used logistic regression to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) of the association between these covariates and cemented fixation. RESULTS: We identified 65,823 patients who underwent arthroplasty for hip fractures. The proportion of cases with cemented fixation for hemiarthroplasty increased by 30 percentage points over the study period; the proportion for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remained relatively stable. High-volume hospitals (≥ 500 annual hip arthroplasties with ≥ 25% of these for fractures) were least likely to cement, OR = 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.34 vs low-volume hospitals (< 500 cases/< 25% for fractures). High volume surgeons (≥ 50 hips/year, ≥ 16/year for fractures) had an OR of 0.80 (CI 0.75-0.84) compared with < 50 hips/year surgeons. Teaching hospitals were more likely to cement, OR = 1.16 (CI 1.10-1.22). The OR of cemented fixation for hemiarthroplasty (vs THA) rose from 1.13 (CI 0.99-1.29) at the start of the study period to 2.17 (CI 2.02-2.33) at the end. CONCLUSION: The use of cemented fixation in hip fracture arthroplasty has increased across Canada over the last decade. However, surgeons and hospitals that treat more hip fracture patients are less likely to cement. The proportion of cemented fixation increases with patient age. Cement use is more common in hemiarthroplasty than in 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OrthopaedicaSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207