Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24081667›Full record

Trial reportClinical orthopaedics and related research2014

Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: 5-year followup of a randomized trial.

Ellen Langslet, Frede Frihagen, Vidar Opland, Jan Erik Madsen, Lars Nordsletten, Wender Figved

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 222 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Arthroplasties for hip fracture in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Hemiarthroplasty for neck of femur fractures: to cement or not? A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2019
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ellen LangsletOrthopaedic Department, Baerum Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, 1309, Rud, Norway.
Frede Frihagen
Vidar Opland
Jan Erik Madsen
Lars Nordsletten
Wender Figved
University of Oslo · NOVestre Viken Hospital Trust · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisplaced femoral neck fractures usually are treated with hemiarthroplasty. However, the degree to which the design of the implant used (cemented or uncemented) affects the outcome is not known and may be therapeutically important. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this randomized controlled trial, we sought to compare cemented with cementless fixation in bipolar hemiarthroplasties at 5 years in terms of (1) Harris hip scores; (2) femoral fractures; (3) overall health outcomes using the Barthel Index and EQ-5D scores; and (4) complications, reoperations, and mortality since our earlier report on this cohort at 1-year followup.

methodsWe present followup at a median of 5 years after surgery (range, 56-65 months) from a randomized trial comparing a cemented hemiarthroplasty (112 hips) with an uncemented, hydroxyapatite-coated hemiarthroplasty (108 hips), both with a bipolar head. Results were previously reported at 1-year followup. Harris hip scores, Barthel Index, and EQ-5D scores were assessed by one research nurse and one orthopaedic surgeon. Complications and reoperations were determined by chart review and radiographs examined by three orthopaedic surgeons. Sixty patients (56%) had died in the cemented group and 63 (60%) in the uncemented group. Respectively, three and two patients (2.7% and 1.9%) were completely lost to followup.

resultsHarris hip scores at 5 years were higher in the uncemented group than in the cemented group (86.2 versus 76.3; mean difference 9.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-17.9). The prevalence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures was 7.4% in the uncemented group and 0.9% in the cemented group (hazard ratio [HR], 9.3; 95% CI, 1.16-74.5). Barthel Index and EQ-5D scores were not different between the groups. Between 1 and 5 years, we found no additional infections or dislocations. The mortality rate was not different between the groups (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.82-1.7).

conclusionsBoth arthroplasties may be used with good medium-term results after displaced femoral neck fractures. The uncemented hemiarthroplasty may result in higher hip scores but appears to carry an unacceptably high risk of later femoral fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Indexed as

HemiarthroplastyAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, HipBiomechanical PhenomenaBone CementsFemaleFemoral Neck FracturesFracture FixationHip ProsthesisHumansMaleNorwayPeriprosthetic FracturesProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignBone Cements

Identifiers

PMID24081667
PMCPMC3940758
OpenAlexW2015690420

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.