{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,25]],"date-time":"2026-08-25T15:30:05Z","timestamp":1787671805498,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":18,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"19","content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["J Am Acad Orthop Surg","JAAOS"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Cemented fixation is recommended in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of geriatric femoral neck fractures. Certain cemented stems have similarly designed \u201clow-demand\u201d counterparts, but it is unclear whether they yield comparable clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the revision risk associated with two low-demand stems, Summit Basic (DePuy Synthes) and Versys LD\/Fx (Zimmer Biomet), in comparison to their standard counterparts, Summit (DePuy Synthes) and Versys Advocate (Zimmer Biomet).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Using our U.S. integrated healthcare system's Hip Fracture Registry, we identified patients aged \u226560 years who were treated with one of these four cemented hemiarthroplasty devices (2009-2022). Low-demand stems were compared with standard stems on the basis of aseptic revision rates (primary outcome measure) as well as periprosthetic fracture and 90-day complications (secondary outcome measures). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust for potential confounders.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Overall, there were 9,828 cemented hemiarthroplasties (69.0% female, 78.9% White), including 3,713 low-demand stems and 6,115 standard stems. In the adjusted analysis, low-demand stems were associated with a higher risk of aseptic revision compared with standard designs (hazard ratio [HR] 1.53, 95%CI 1.06-2.22,\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P<\/jats:italic>\n                      = 0.024). This difference was driven primarily by a higher risk of periprosthetic fracture in the low-demand stems (HR 3.40, 95%CI 1.54-7.51,\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P<\/jats:italic>\n                      = 0.003). Similar findings were observed when separately comparing Summit Basic with Summit and Versys LD\/Fx to Versys Advocate, and when restricting to procedures performed by experienced total hip arthroplasty surgeons.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>In this study of 9,828 hip fracture patients treated with cemented hemiarthroplasty, low-demand stems were associated with a higher risk of aseptic revision as compared with their standard counterparts. Further research is required to determine the features of the low-demand stems which could be contributing to this finding, as well as the circumstances under which usage of low-demand stems could still be justified based on cost.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.5435\/jaaos-d-24-00985","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,16]],"date-time":"2025-01-16T18:00:12Z","timestamp":1737050412000},"page":"e1160-e1169","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Low-Demand Cemented Femoral Stem Designs and Revision Risk Following the Hemiarthroplasty Treatment of Geriatric Hip Fracture"],"prefix":"10.5435","volume":"33","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-9310-9969","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Kanu","family":"Okike","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Heather A.","family":"Prentice","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Elizabeth W.","family":"Paxton","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Brian H.","family":"Fasig","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ishan","family":"Shah","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Christopher D.","family":"Grimsrud","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Foster","family":"Chen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,14]]},"reference":[{"key":"R2-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1932","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.16.01247","article-title":"Nationwide analysis of femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: A receding tide","volume":"99","author":"Ju","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"key":"R3-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1077","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2020.1067","article-title":"Association between uncemented vs cemented hemiarthroplasty and revision surgery among patients with hip fracture","volume":"323","author":"Okike","year":"2020","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"key":"R4-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"214","DOI":"10.1080\/17453674.2019.1582680","article-title":"Not all cemented hips are the same: A register-based (NJR) comparison of taper-slip and composite beam femoral stems","volume":"90","author":"Kazi","year":"2019","journal-title":"Acta Orthop"},{"key":"R7-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"87","DOI":"10.7812\/TPP\/22.172","article-title":"Comparing kaiser Permanente members to the general population: Implications for generalizability of research","volume":"27","author":"Davis","year":"2023","journal-title":"Perm J"},{"key":"R8-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.7812\/TPP\/14-231","article-title":"A community-based hip fracture registry: Population, methods, and outcomes","volume":"19","author":"Inacio","year":"2015","journal-title":"Perm J"},{"key":"R9-20250919","first-page":"246","article-title":"Kaiser Permanente implant registries benefit patient safety, quality improvement, cost-effectiveness","volume":"39","author":"Paxton","year":"2013","journal-title":"Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf"},{"key":"R10-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"8","DOI":"10.1097\/00005650-199801000-00004","article-title":"Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data","volume":"36","author":"Elixhauser","year":"1998","journal-title":"Med Care"},{"key":"R11-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1130","DOI":"10.1097\/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83","article-title":"Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data","volume":"43","author":"Quan","year":"2005","journal-title":"Med Care"},{"key":"R12-20250919","first-page":"404","article-title":"Improvements in quality, safety and costs associated with use of implant registries within a health system","volume":"50","author":"Prentice","year":"2024","journal-title":"Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf"},{"key":"R13-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"229","DOI":"10.5435\/JAAOS-D-20-01312","article-title":"Association between the femoral stem design type and the risk of aseptic revision after hemiarthroplasty","volume":"30","author":"Okike","year":"2022","journal-title":"J Am Acad Orthop Surg"},{"key":"R14-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"730","DOI":"10.1016\/j.injury.2012.10.031","article-title":"Cemented versus cementless hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular neck of femur fracture--a comparison of 60,848 matched patients using national data","volume":"44","author":"Jameson","year":"2013","journal-title":"Injury"},{"key":"R15-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"90","DOI":"10.1097\/CORR.0000000000000826","article-title":"Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture? Data from the Norwegian hip fracture register","volume":"478","author":"Kristensen","year":"2020","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Relat Res"},{"key":"R16-20250919","article-title":"Are there differences in performance among femoral stem brands utilized in cementless hemiarthroplasty for treatment of geriatric femoral neck fractures?","author":"Shah","year":"2024","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Relat Res"},{"key":"R17-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1024","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.21.00853","article-title":"Revisiting cemented femoral fixation in hip arthroplasty","volume":"104","author":"Khanuja","year":"2022","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"key":"R18-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"479","DOI":"10.1016\/S0883-5403(97)90169-8","article-title":"16- to 25-year follow-up study of cemented arthroplasty of the hip in patients aged 50 years or younger","volume":"12","author":"Devitt","year":"1997","journal-title":"J Arthroplasty"},{"key":"R19-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"77","DOI":"10.2106\/00004623-199401000-00010","article-title":"The cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. Analysis of long-term radiographic results","volume":"76","author":"Ebramzadeh","year":"1994","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"key":"R20-20250919","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"708","DOI":"10.1016\/S0883-5403(99)90226-7","article-title":"Normalized and proportionalized cemented femoral stem survivorship at 15 years","volume":"14","author":"Jaffe","year":"1999","journal-title":"J Arthroplasty"},{"key":"R21-20250919","first-page":"73","article-title":"Predisposing factors in fixation failure of femoral prostheses following primary Charnley low friction arthroplasty. A 10- to 20-year followup study","volume":"306","author":"Kobayashi","year":"1994","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Relat Res"}],"container-title":["Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.5435\/JAAOS-D-24-00985","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,25]],"date-time":"2026-08-25T14:50:41Z","timestamp":1787669441000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.5435\/JAAOS-D-24-00985"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,14]]},"references-count":18,"journal-issue":{"issue":"19","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5435\/jaaos-d-24-00985","relation":{},"ISSN":["1067-151X","1940-5480"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1067-151X","type":"print"},{"value":"1940-5480","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,14]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2024-09-01","name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2024-12-06","name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}