ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2024
Cemented Versus Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty for Displaced Intracapsular Neck of Femur Fractures in the Elderly: Outcomes and Costings.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Discrepancy Between Evidence and Practice: Underuse of Cemented Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures and Its Association With Surgeon Training Background.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Time Is Bone: Missed Opportunities for Secondary Prevention After a Hip Fracture.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hemiarthroplasty (HA) is a common form of treatment for displaced neck of femur fractures. There is ongoing debate as to whether cemented or uncemented HA is a more superior treatment modality. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between patients that underwent cemented HA to uncemented HA. Secondarily, we analysed the costs associated of each treatment option. Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted at a busy district general hospital. The study included 335 patients that were treated with either a cemented or uncemented HA for a displaced neck of femur fracture between January 2017 and December 2018. Data collected included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, treatment modality, length of stay (LOS) and general costs. Results: 197 (58.8%) of the cohort underwent cemented HA and 138 (41.2%) underwent uncemented HA. Mean age for the cemented cohort was 84.7 years and 85.9 years in the uncemented group ( Conclusion: We found that both cemented and uncemented HAs produced comparable results. We found a statistically significant reduction in operative time and costs associated with uncemented HA. Uncemented HA implants may be considered where a shorter operation duration is essential.
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.