ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Outcomes of press-fit uncemented versus cemented hip arthroplasty in the oncologic patient.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancer and total hip arthroplasty: a narrative review of clinical intersections, challenges and outcomes.Orthopedic reviews · 2026Article
- Uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients with systemic malignancy without skeletal involvement: A retrospective case series.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- What Is the Cumulative Incidence of Femoral Stem Revision and Stem Complication in Cemented and Uncemented Hip Arthroplasty for Proximal Femoral Metastatic Bone Disease?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Surgical management of metastatic lesions in the proximal femur: a systematic review.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCemented hip arthroplasty is considered the standard of care for treating both osteoporotic femoral neck fractures and pathologic disease of the proximal femur due to the ability to achieve strong fixation in poor quality bone. There is minimal literature evaluating uncemented arthroplasty for pathologic disease of the proximal femur. This objective of this study is to compare outcomes of patients undergoing cemented and uncemented arthroplasty of the proximal femur for an oncologic indication.
methodsPatients who underwent hip arthroplasty procedures in one health system for an oncologic indication were identified. Demographics, cancer history, operative history, and complications were collected retrospectively. Harris Hip Scores (HHS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scores (MSTS) were prospectively collected via telephone.
results41 patients met criteria for review. 18 underwent cemented and 23 underwent uncemented arthroplasty. There were no significant differences in age, demographics, complications, 30-day mortality, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion requirements, average HHS, or average MSTS.
conclusionNo significant differences were found for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for an oncologic indication regardless of whether or not the femoral component was cemented. Our results suggest that cemented and uncemented techniques are both safe and effective methods to be used at the oncologic surgeon's discretion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.