ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Comparison of mechanical and clinical outcomes between cement-augmented and conventional cephalomedullary nailing in osteoporotic trochanteric fractures: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. 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.
- [Cement augmentation in pertrochanteric fractures : Evidence, indication and surgical application].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Atraumatic anterior hip dislocation after cephalomedullary nailing for an intertrochanteric femoral fracture: a case report highlighting the importance of initial reduction and prevention of excessive telescoping.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
Abstract
backgroundTrochanteric fractures in the older population are challenging to treat due to osteoporotic bone and high risk of fixation failure. Cement augmentation (CA) of cephalomedullary fixation has been proposed to enhance implant anchorage and reduce complications. This study compared mechanical failure rates and clinical outcomes between cement-augmented and conventional cephalomedullary nailing in osteoporotic trochanteric fractures.
methodsWe performed a retrospective comparative study of patients with trochanteric fractures treated with either a CA or non-CA cephalomedullary nail from February 2022 to July 2023. To minimize selection bias, 1:2 propensity score matching was applied to our initial 143 consecutive cases (28 CA, 115 non-CA), yielding 28 augmented and 56 conventional cases. The primary outcome was the rate of implant cut-out. Secondary outcomes were excessive telescopic sliding, 1-year mortality, and patient-reported outcome measures using Harris Hip Score (HHS) and EuroQol 5-Dimension (Eq. 5D) at the final follow up.
resultsAfter matching, the CA group had no instances of cut-out (0/28), compared to 1 case (1/56, 1.8%) in the non-CA group (p = 1.00), though the study was underpowered for this rare outcome, with mean follow-up periods of 19.2 ± 18.3 weeks and 23.0 ± 22.5 weeks, respectively. Excessive sliding of the proximal screw occurred in 3 patients (10.7%) with CA versus 7 (12.5%) without (p = 1.00) during the same follow-up period, while 1-year mortality was similar between groups (CA 25.0% vs. non-CA 19.6%, p = 0.78). Final follow-up HHS and Eq. 5D scores were similar between the CA and non-CA groups. No cement-related complications, such as leakage or thermal injury, were observed in this cohort.
conclusionsCement augmentation of a cephalomedullary nail demonstrated comparable mechanical outcomes in terms of cut-out and excessive sliding, as well as similar 1-year mortality and functional outcomes to conventional fixation. This process with a cephalomedullary nail appears to be a safe and effective option for older patients with a trochanteric fracture and shows no postoperative complications. Further large prospective studies are needed to identify patients expected to benefit most from CA.
trial registrationnot applicable.
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.