ReviewCureus2026
A Comparison of Internal Fixation and Hemiarthroplasty for Nondisplaced Femoral Neck Fractures: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
The optimal management of nondisplaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) in elderly patients remains debated. Internal fixation (IF) offers shorter operative time and reduced blood loss but carries risks of nonunion and reoperation, whereas hemiarthroplasty (HA) may reduce these failures at the expense of greater operative burden. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase (completed in September 2025) to identify randomized controlled trials comparing IF and HA in patients aged ≥65 years with Garden I-II FNFs. Four RCTs were included, enrolling 454 patients (230 IF; 224 HA). Outcomes included implant-related complications, reoperation, mortality, functional outcomes, perioperative variables, and quality of life. IF was associated with significantly higher implant-related complications (19.1% vs. 3.1%; odds ratio (OR) = 4.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.12-8.00; P < 0.0001) and reoperations (OR = 4.10, 95% CI = 2.12-7.95; P < 0.0001). Osteonecrosis was more frequent following IF (OR = 5.97, 95% CI = 1.54-23.14; P = 0.01), as was nonunion/fixation failure (OR = 13.43, 95% CI = 3.66-49.33; P < 0.0001). Deep infection rates were comparable between the groups (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.14-1.92; P = 0.33). In contrast, HA was associated with greater blood loss (mean difference (MD) = -143.11 mL, 95% CI = -204.53 to -81.69; P < 0.0001) and longer operative time (MD = -23.07 minutes, 95% CI = -41.14 to -4.99; P = 0.01). Mortality was comparable between the groups up to 36 months (risk ratio = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.50-1.73; P = 0.81). Early functional outcomes favored HA, although long-term scores were similar. This meta-analysis suggests that HA reduces complications and reoperations without increasing mortality and may represent a preferable option for many frail elderly patients, while treatment decisions should remain individualized based on operative risk and comorbidity.
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.