Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20556753›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults.

Martyn J Parker, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Shin Azegami

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 18 pooled it
29.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

108 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 391 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Arthroplasties for hip fracture in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the direct anterior approach for hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martyn J ParkerDepartment of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK, PE3 6DA.
Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Shin Azegami
Peterborough City Hospital · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous types of arthroplasties may be used in the surgical treatment of a hip fracture (proximal femoral fracture). The main differences between the implants are in the design of the stems, whether the stem is cemented or uncemented, whether a second articulating joint is included within the prosthesis (bipolar prosthesis), or whether a partial (hemiarthroplasty) or total whole hip replacement is used.

objectivesTo review all randomised controlled trials comparing different arthroplasties for the treatment of hip fractures in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (September 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registers (all to September 2009), and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different arthroplasties and their insertion with or without cement, for the treatment of hip fractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, by use of a 10-item checklist, and extracted data. MAIN

resultsTwenty-three trials involving 2861 older and mainly female patients with proximal femoral fractures are included. Cemented prostheses, when compared with uncemented prostheses (6 trials, 899 participants) were associated with a less pain at a year or later and improved mobility. No significant difference in surgical complications was found. One trial of 220 participants compared a hydroxyapatite coated hemiarthroplasty with a cemented prosthesis and reported no notable differences between the two prosthesis. Comparison of unipolar hemiarthroplasty with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (7 trials, 857 participants, 863 fractures) showed no significant differences between the two types of implant. Seven trials involving 734 participants compared hemiarthroplasty with a total hip replacement (THR). Most studies involved cemented implants. Dislocation of the prosthesis was more common with the THR but there was a general trend within these studies to better functional outcome scores for those treated with the THR. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is good evidence that cementing the prostheses in place will reduce post-operative pain and lead to better mobility. From the trials to date there is no evidence of any difference in outcome between bipolar and unipolar prosthesis. There is some evidence that a total hip replacement leads to better functional outcome than a hemiarthroplasty. Further well-conducted randomised trials are required.

Indexed as

Bone CementsAdultArthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemaleFemoral Neck FracturesHip FracturesHumansMaleProsthesis DesignRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBone Cements

Identifiers

PMID20556753
PMCPMC12360749
OpenAlexW2129141569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.