Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39023807›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2024

Comparative outcomes of uncemented and cemented stem revision in managing periprosthetic femoral fractures: a retrospective cohort study.

Michael Axenhus, Sebastian Mukka, Martin Magnéli, Olof Sköldenberg

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Vancouver B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur: options for treatment.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. CementedWorld journal of orthopedics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. For many but not for all: the bikini incision direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. A narrative review.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Review
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

4 authors.

Michael AxenhusDepartment of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Division of Orthopaedics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. michael.axenhus.2@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2476-4465
Sebastian MukkaDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention (Orthopaedics), Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Martin MagnéliDepartment of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Division of Orthopaedics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Olof SköldenbergDepartment of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Division of Orthopaedics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPeriprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) following hip arthroplasty, especially Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures, present a challenge due to the association with a loose femoral stem, necessitating either open reduction and internal fixation or stem revision. This study aims to compare outcomes between uncemented and cemented stem revisions in managing Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures, considering factors such as hip-related complications, reoperations, and clinical outcome.

methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted at Danderyd Hospital, Sweden, from 2008 to 2022, encompassing operatively treated Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures. Patients were categorized into uncemented and cemented stem revision groups, with data collected on complications, revision surgeries, fracture healing times, and clinical outcomes.

resultsA total of 241 patients were identified. Significant differences were observed between the two groups in patient demographics, with the cemented group comprising older patients and more females. Follow up ranged from 1 to 15 years. Average follow up time was 3.9 years for the cemented group and 5.5 years for the uncemented group. The cemented stems demonstrated lower rates of dislocation (8.9% versus 22.5%, P = 0.004) and stem loosening (0.6% versus 9.3%, P = 0.004) than the uncemented method. Moreover, the cemented group exhibited shorter fracture healing times (11.4 weeks versus 16.7 weeks, P = 0.034). There was no difference in clinical outcome between groups. Mortality was higher in the cemented group.

conclusionsThis retrospective study indicates that cemented stem revision for Vancouver B2-3 fractures is correlated with lower dislocation and stem loosening rates, necessitating fewer reoperations and shorter fracture healing times compared with the uncemented approach. The cemented group had a notably higher mortality rate, urging caution in its clinical interpretation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III:

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipBone CementsFemoral FracturesPeriprosthetic FracturesReoperationAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHip ProsthesisHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesSwedenTreatment OutcomeBone CementsArthroplastyFemoral fracturesRevision surgeryStem fixationVancouver classification

Identifiers

PMID39023807
PMCPMC11258106

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.