ArticleRevista brasileira de ortopedia2026
Is It Necessary to Use Cement Augmentation in Internal Fixation for Trochanteric Fractures in the Elderly? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Revista brasileira de ortopedia, 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
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of cement augmentation in internal fixation of trochanteric fractures in the elderly. Methods: A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, SpringerLink, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases was conducted up to February 2025 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing internal fixation with and without cement augmentation. The review adhered to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Random-effects models were used to pool effect estimates. The primary outcomes were fixation failure and tip-apex distance (TAD). The secondary outcomes included mortality, reoperation rate, length of hospital stay, blood loss, and operative time. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0; Cochrane Collaboration), and evidence certainty, with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Five RCTs comprising 509 patients were included. Cement augmentation did not significantly reduce fixation failure (relative risk [RR] = 1.13; 95%CI: 0.20-6.43) but significantly improved the TAD (mean difference [MD] = -2.11 mm; 95%CI: -3.13 to -1.09; Conclusions: Cement augmentation improves fixation quality and reduces hospitalization in elderly patients with trochanteric fractures, but it increases blood loss and operative time. Its use should be individualized based on patient risk profiles.
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.