MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416209154 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.13.005

CEMENTING HIP FRACTURES AS THE STANDARD OF CARE: ESTABLISHING THE CONSENSUS IN CANADA?

2025· article· en· W4416209154 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gavin Wood, A. Falsetto, Lin Wu, Η Böhm

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal hip replacementHip arthroplastyHip fractureOrthopedic surgeryArthroplastyJoint replacementTotal hip arthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the evidence supporting the use of cemented over non-cemented femoral stem fixation for treating hip fractures, there is still variation in its application. This paper looks at current trends in Canada using Canadian Joint Replacement Registry data and includes a national survey to understand the varied uptake in the use of cement for femoral stem fixation, aiming to discuss and explore ways to improve the quality of care for hip fracture patients. The Canadian Arthroplasty Society approved this national survey before the Canadian Orthopaedic Association endorsed it for distribution to its members. The survey was available online through Qualtrics, and the website link was distributed via email through the Canadian Orthopaedic Association to all orthopaedic surgeons across Canada. All survey responses remained anonymous. The survey was open for submissions between September and December of 2022. The survey was distributed to 1600 individuals and received 106 responses (response rate of 7%). Respondents’ location of practice varied; Ontario was the most common (40%), followed by Quebec (12.3%). Most respondents practiced in an academic community setting (52%). The number of respondents who reported using cement was roughly equal, with 53% responding ‘yes’ and 47% responding ‘no.’ 71% of respondents indicated that cemented femoral fixation was best practice, 27% indicated that both cemented/uncemented were acceptable, and 2% indicated that uncemented was best practice. Respondents cited various reasons for the selection of uncemented fixation, with the most common ones being less operative time (23%), cement disease concerns (11%), and surgeons’ comfort (10%). This Canadian study demonstrates equivalent use of cemented and cementless implants for femoral stem fixation despite solid evidence demonstrating improved clinical outcomes with cement. Some of the main reasons cited by respondents in favour of uncemented technique include operative time, surgical training, and concern about cement disease. Establishing clear position statements and clinical practice guidelines supporting cemented femoral stem fixation may be prudent to build universal consensus on this practice.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207