Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37221904›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2023

Similar revision rate after cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 1,879 revision hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

Bart Van Dooren, Rinne M Peters, Paul C Jutte, Martin Stevens, B Willem Schreurs, Wierd P Zijlstra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. CementedWorld journal of orthopedics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Bart Van Dooren *Department of Orthopaedics, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden; Department of Orthopaedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen. bart.van.dooren@mcl.nl.
Rinne M Peters *Department of Orthopaedics, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden; Department of Orthopaedics, Martini Hospital, Groningen.
Paul C JutteDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen.
Martin StevensDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen.
B Willem SchreursDepartment of Orthopaedics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen; Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Wierd P ZijlstraDepartment of Orthopaedics, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposePeriprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a serious complication, as it often is followed by functional deficits and morbidity. There is no consensus regarding the optimal stem fixation method and whether additional cup replacement is beneficial. The aim of our study was to perform a direct comparison of reasons and risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision THAs following PPF using registry data. PATIENTS AND

methods1,879 patients registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI) who underwent a first-time revision for PPF between 2007 and 2021 (cemented stem: n = 555; uncemented stem: n = 1,324) were included. Competing risk survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed.

results5- and 10-year crude cumulative incidence of re-revision following revision for PPF was similar between cemented (resp. 13%, 95% CI 10-16 and 18%, CI 13-24) and uncemented (resp. 11%, CI 10-13 and 13%, CI 11-16) revisions. Multivariable Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders, showed a similar risk of revision for uncemented and cemented revision stems. Finally, we found no difference in risk of re-revision between a total revision (HR 1.2, 0.6-2.1) compared with a stem revision.

conclusionWe found no difference in the risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision stems after revision for PPF.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemoral FracturesPeriprosthetic FracturesFemurHumansRegistries

Identifiers

PMID37221904
PMCPMC10210054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.