ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2026
Cement-in-cement revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: indications, surgical principles, and clinical outcomes - a narrative review.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures represent a major surgical challenge, particularly in elderly and frail patients. Revision with long uncemented stems remains the standard treatment, but it is technically demanding and associated with substantial surgical morbidity. The cement-in-cement technique has emerged as a less invasive alternative that may reduce operative burden in carefully selected cases. The aim of this narrative review was to critically evaluate the current evidence regarding the use of the cement-in-cement technique for the management of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures. A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus to identify studies reporting indications, surgical principles, and clinical outcomes of this technique. Available evidence suggests that cement-in-cement revision is associated with complication and re-revision rates comparable to those of uncemented long-stem revision, while offering shorter operative times and similar implant survivorship. The cement-in-cement technique may be a viable option for selected patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty, particularly when the distal cement mantle is well-fixed. However, current evidence remains limited, and further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up are required to better define indications and long-term outcomes. Level of evidence: Level IV.
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.