ArticleArthroplasty today2025
Femoral Fixation for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty-An International Registry Perspective.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Cemented Versus Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The preferred method for femoral fixation (FF) during total hip arthroplasty (THA) has varied internationally. While prior studies explored trends within single countries or small international cohorts, there's a paucity of studies comparing international trends of FF for primary THA patients. This study analyzed global trends in FF methods, survival by fixation type, and periprosthetic fractures as a reason for revision. Methods: Data were extracted from 2000 to the present from 16 national joint replacement registries. Data were collected on the number of cemented and uncemented primary THA cases each year. Revision and survival data were analyzed by fixation method. Aggregate data on periprosthetic fractures as a reason for revision and specific data on periprosthetic fractures by fixation method were included when available. Results: A global shift from cemented to uncemented FF was observed over the past two decades, except in the Netherlands. Even in countries favoring cementation, such as Sweden, uncemented techniques are gaining popularity. Survival rates for cemented and uncemented methods were comparable, but periprosthetic fracture rates varied regionally. Preferences reflected both clinical practice differences and patient needs. Conclusions: Most countries investigated show a preference for uncemented fixation. However, the popularity of cemented fixation in certain countries reflects its continued relevance, especially in populations with different clinical needs. Survival by fixation method was similar among countries, but periprosthetic fracture as reason for revision varied widely.
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.