ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2021
Uncemented versus cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement in patients with femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Rehabilitation Nursing under the Guidance of the Health Action Process Approach Model on Perioperative Nursing Effect of Artificial Hip Arthroplasty: Effect on Promoting Quality of Life and Postoperative Rehabilitation.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Trial
- Survival outcomes of hybrid total hip replacement following failed proximal femoral nail antirotation: a retrospective study with a median 10-year follow-up.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Mid-Term Outcomes of Cemented or Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty for Failed Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation Following Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures: A Retrospective Observational Study.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of primary metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-TR) converted to uncemented total hip replacement (UTR) or cemented total hip replacement (CTR) in patients with femoral neck fractures (AO/OTA: 31B/C).
methodsPatient data of 234 UTR or CTR revisions after primary MoM-TR failure from March 2007 to January 2018 were retrospectively identified. Clinical outcomes, including the Harris hip score (HHS) and key orthopaedic complications, were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months following conversion and every 12 months thereafter.
resultsThe mean follow-up was 84.12 (67-100) months for UTR and 84.23 (66-101) months for CTR. At the last follow-up, the HHS was better in the CTR- than UTR-treated patients. Noteworthy dissimilarities were correspondingly detected in the key orthopaedic complication rates (16.1% for CTR vs. 47.4% for UTR). Statistically significant differences in specific orthopaedic complications were also detected in the re-revision rate (10.3% for UTR vs. 2.5% for CTR), prosthesis loosening rate (16.3% for UTR vs. 5.9% for CTR), and periprosthetic fracture rate (12.0% for UTR vs. 4.2% for CTR).
conclusionIn the setting of revision of failed primary MoM-TR, CTR may demonstrate advantages over UTR in improving functional outcomes and reducing key orthopaedic complications.
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.