ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Recovery trajectories of spatiotemporal gait after bipolar hemiarthroplasty versus closed reduction and internal fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fracture: a prospective wearable-sensor study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
Abstract
backgroundGeriatric hip fractures, particularly unstable intertrochanteric fractures, pose a significant global health challenge with high morbidity and mortality. The optimal surgical management remains debated, with both Closed Reduction and Internal Fixation (CRIF) and Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty (BHA) being widely accepted treatment options. However, there is a conspicuous paucity of objective, quantitative data comparing the longitudinal gait recovery trajectories following these two distinct surgical approaches. This study aimed to leverage validated wearable inertial sensors to systematically characterize and compare the spatiotemporal gait recovery patterns of elderly patients undergoing CRIF versus BHA for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
methodsThis prospective cohort study enrolled 48 patients aged > 70 years with unstable intertrochanteric fractures (AO/OTA 31-A2/A3). Patients were allocated to Group A (CRIF with PFNA, n = 21) or Group B (BHA, n = 27) based on surgeon preference and patient factors. Baseline frailty was assessed using the modified Frailty Index (mFI) and it was comparable between 2 groups. A comprehensive battery of spatiotemporal gait parameters was objectively quantified using validated Gait Up Physilog® 5 wearable inertial sensors at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively.
resultsAt 3 months postoperatively, the BHA group demonstrated markedly superior gait parameters compared to the CRIF group, including significantly higher cadence (82.9 ± 27.3 vs. 51.7 ± 22.3 steps/min; p = 0.025) and shorter gait cycle time (1.6 ± 0.5 s vs. 2.7 ± 1.0 s; p = 0.028), reflecting a more confident and fluid gait pattern in the BHA cohort. However, this functional advantage attenuated by 6 months, as the CRIF group exhibited a compensatory "catch-up" phenomenon, achieving comparable gait parameters (p > 0.05) once fracture consolidation was established. No postoperative complications were observed in either group during the study period.
conclusionsWhile both BHA and CRIF are effective treatments for unstable intertrochanteric fractures, BHA offers a clinically meaningful advantage in early-to-mid-term gait recovery. The immediate intrinsic stability provided by arthroplasty facilitates earlier return to confident ambulation, which is of paramount importance for frail geriatric patients with limited physiological reserve. For select high-risk patients, BHA may be preferred to mitigate risks of prolonged immobility and optimize functional recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic Study.
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.