Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30813202›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails.

Feng Fei Lin, Yi Fan Chen, Bin Chen, Chao Hui Lin, Ke Zheng

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.1field-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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Periprosthetic fracture following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture: is a cemented stem protective?European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Feng Fei LinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Fuzhou Second Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University.
Yi Fan ChenFujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Bin ChenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Fuzhou Second Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University.
Chao Hui LinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Fuzhou Second Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University.
Ke ZhengDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Fuzhou Second Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University.
Fujian Medical University · CNFujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNFuzhou Second Hospital · CNXiamen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness and safety of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures.

methodsWe searched PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from their inception to February 2016. All RCTs comparing cemented with uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures were eligible. The participants who underwent primary hemiarthroplasty for unilateral femoral neck fracture were older than 55 and the mean age of more than 75 years old. For the trials before 2006 used old designed prostheses, so we excluded trails before 2006 which used old designed prostheses. Outcomes of interest include postoperative hip function, Harris hip score (HHS), mortality, reoperation rate, complications, operation time, intraoperative blood loss. Two reviewers independently evaluated the included studies and extracted data into RevMan. Quality Assessments were classified by agreement of 2 authors based on the Cochrane tool.

resultsSeven trials were eligible. Postoperative hip function at 12 months cemented hemiarthroplasty was better than that in uncemented hemiarthroplasty (OR = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.31-0.88; P = .01). Postoperative fractures rates in cemented hemiarthroplasty were lower than that in uncemented hemiarthroplasty (OR = 0.09, 95% CI, 0.02-0.38; P = .001). Also, the interoperative fracture rates in cemented hemiarthroplasty were lower than that in uncemented hemiarthroplasty (OR = 0.29, 95% CI, 0.13-0.68; P = .004). Shorter operation time was achieved in uncemented hemiarthroplasty than that in cemented hemiarthroplasty (WMD = 8.22 min, 95% CI, 5.57-10.86 min; P<.00001). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with HHS, mortality, wound infection, dislocation, general complications, reoperation rate, and intraoperative blood loss.

conclusionThe available evidence indicates that compared with uncemented hemiarthroplasty cemented hemiarthroplasty achieved better postoperative hip function, less postoperative, and interoperative fractures in displaced femoral neck fracture. Uncemented hemiarthroplasty achieved shorter operation time. There was no difference between the 2 groups with HHS at 1 year, mortality, and complications.

Indexed as

HemiarthroplastyPostoperative ComplicationsBone CementsFemoral Neck FracturesFractures, MalunitedHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBone Cements

Identifiers

PMID30813202
PMCPMC6407990
OpenAlexW2919789527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.