ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Single versus dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip fracture arthroplasty: a cohort study of 56,434 hip arthroplasties from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeHip fracture treatment with (hemi)arthroplasty carries a risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), which may be reduced by using dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC). We aimed to compare the rate of all-cause revision, revision for infection, and mortality following single or dual ALBC use in hip fracture arthroplasty.
methodsFrom the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, we identified all cemented hemiarthroplasties (HA) and total hip arthroplasties (THA) performed in the period 2007-2024 for proximal femoral fracture. Crude cumulative incidences of all-cause and infection revision were estimated using competing risk survival analyses with death as competing event. Mortality was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Cause-specific Cox regression models adjusting for age, year of surgery, history of previous surgeries, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification estimated hazard ratios (HRs).
resultsWe analyzed 56,434 hip arthroplasties, of which 1,651 used dual ALBC. 1-year crude cumulative incidences were similar across groups for all-cause revision, infection revision, and mortality. After adjustment, dual ALBC was not associated with a reduced rate of all-cause revision (HR 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-1.5]) compared with single ALBC. Dual ALBC was associated with a modestly higher revision for infection (HR 1.6, CI 1.0-2.5) and mortality in HA (HR 1.2, CI 1.1-1.2).
conclusionDual ALBC was not associated with lower revision rates compared with single ALBC but a modestly higher revision rate was noted for infection and mortality following hip arthroplasty after hip fracture.
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.