Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34129607›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Cement augmentation for trochanteric femur fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies.

Ingmar F Rompen, Matthias Knobe, Bjoern-Christian Link, Frank J P Beeres, Ralf Baumgaertner, Nadine Diwersi, Filippo Migliorini, Sven Nebelung, Reto Babst, Bryan J M van de Wall

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

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

  1. Cement augmentation for proximal humerus fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Comparison of the Dynamic Cut-Out Failure Modes of Common Proximal Femoral Fixation Devices Using a Mesh-Free Computational Method.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Evaluating polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) augmentation in cephalomedullary nail fixation of hip fractures: a step towards evidence-based patient selection criteria.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Geriatric proximal femur fracture updates.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ingmar F RompenDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0257-1654
Matthias KnobeDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Bjoern-Christian LinkDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Frank J P BeeresDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Ralf BaumgaertnerDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Nadine DiwersiDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Sven NebelungDepartment of Radiology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Reto BabstDepartment of Health Science and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Bryan J M van de WallDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
University of Lucerne · CHUniversitätsklinikum Aachen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo date, it is unclear what the clinical benefit of cement augmentation in fixation for trochanteric fractures is. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare cement augmentation to no augmentation in fixation of trochanteric femur fractures in the elderly patients (>65 years) following low energy trauma.

methodsPubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL were searched for both randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing both treatments. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by study design (RCTs and observational studies). The primary outcome is overall complication rate. Secondary outcomes include re-operation rate, mortality, operation duration, hospital stay, general quality of life, radiologic measures and functional hip scores.

resultsA total of four RCT's (437 patients) and three observational studies (293 patients) were included. The effect estimates of RCTs were equal to those obtained from observational studies. Cement augmentation has a significantly lower overall complication rate (28.3% versus 47.2%) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.3 (95%CI 0.1-0.7). The occurrence of device/fracture related complications was the largest contributing factor to this higher overall complication rate in the non-augmented group (19.9% versus 6.0%, OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1-0.6). Cement augmentation also carries a lower risk for re-interventions (OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1-0.7) and shortens the hospital stay with 2 days (95%CI -2.2 to -0.5 days). The mean operation time was 7 minutes longer in the augmented group (95%CI 1.3-12.9). Radiological scores (lag screw/blade sliding mean difference -3.1mm, 95%CI -4.6 to -1.7, varus deviation mean difference -6.15°, 95%CI; -7.4 to -4.9) and functional scores (standardized mean difference 0.31, 95%CI 0.0-0.6) were in favor of cement augmentation. Mortality was equal in both groups (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.4-1.3) and cement related complications were rare.

conclusionCement augmentation in fixation of trochanteric femoral fractures leads to fewer complications, re-operations and shorter hospital stay at the expense of a slightly longer operation duration. Cementation related complications occur rarely and mortality is equal between treatment groups. Based on these results, cement augmentation should be considered for trochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

Indexed as

Aged, 80 and overBone CementsBone NailsBone ScrewsCementationFemaleFemurFracture Fixation, InternalFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHip FracturesHumansMaleOperative TimeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReoperationBone Cements

Identifiers

PMID34129607
PMCPMC8205169
OpenAlexW3167134223

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.