ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2026
Cemented
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) represent a devastating complication following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. The choice of femoral fixation method - cemented
aimTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the risk of PFFs between cemented and uncemented femoral fixation in primary THA.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases up to October 2025. We included comparative studies reporting periprosthetic fracture rates following primary THA with cemented
resultsA total of 27 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which three comparative studies, encompassing 2650 patients (772 cemented, 1878 uncemented), provided extractable data for quantitative meta-analysis of periprosthetic fracture incidence. The pooled analysis demonstrated a trend towards a lower risk of periprosthetic fractures in the cemented group compared to the uncemented group (risk ratio = 0.46; 95% confidence interval: 0.14-1.49;
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that cemented femoral fixation in primary THA may be associated with a lower risk of PFFs compared to uncemented fixation, although this finding did not reach statistical significance and was based on limited, heterogeneous data. The choice of fixation method should be individualized based on patient age, bone quality, activity level, and surgeon experience. Cemented fixation may be particularly advantageous in elderly patients and those with poor bone stock. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials with adequate follow-up are needed to provide definitive evidence.
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.