CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2818 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v0.7

Total hip arthroplasty,
does it really help with Reduced reoperation within two years versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral-neck fracture?

30-Second Summary
D
Evidence Grade D · 34 · Safety caution
Total arthroplasty did not reduce two-year reoperation, with contrasting secondary function and dislocation findings
Dislocation or instability occurred in 4.7% after total arthroplasty and 2.4% after hemiarthroplasty. Choice should integrate activity, cognition, medical status, and rehabilitation potential.
What the
research shows
The grade is D with 34 points. Unplanned secondary hip procedures occurred in 57/718 (7.9%) after total hip arthroplasty and 60/723 (8.3%) after hemiarthroplasty; absolute difference -0.4 percentage points, HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.40), P=0.79.
What the
ads claim
This is a direct choice in older patients with displaced femoral-neck fracture. Similar reoperation, small functional differences, and possible excess dislocation should all be discussed.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Total arthroplasty replaces both acetabular and femoral sides; hemiarthroplasty replaces the femoral side.
  • Mortality was 14.3% versus 13.1%, an absolute +1.2 points.
  • Serious adverse events were 41.8% versus 36.7%, an absolute +5.1 points.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2818 · D 34
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

HEALTH randomized 1,495 patients at 80 centers; the primary analysis included 718 versus 723. The axis 6 B0 basis has four parts. ① Allocation concealment: the article named "concealed randomization" as a strength, and the Methods Center at McMaster University was responsible for randomization. ② Blinding: limitation name: lack of participant and surgeon blinding. Avoidability: impossible - this was a surgical comparison. Primary endpoint events were nevertheless assessed through "independent adjudication of primary end-point events". ③ Analysis population and missingness: primary-endpoint loss to follow-up was 14.9%, below the 15% threshold, and sensitivity analyses agreed. ④ Prespecified primary endpoint: "any unplanned secondary hip procedure" matched NCT00556842. There were therefore no avoidable design limitations. CIHR, NIH, ZonMw, Sophies Minde Foundation, McMaster Surgical Associates, and Stryker Orthopaedics jointly supported the trial.

02

Why this is classified as D (34)

A large hard-outcome RCT is a strength, but one mixed-funded null trial that did not exclude benefit gives D with 34 points.

Counterpoint. A null primary endpoint does not erase secondary function, quality-of-life, or dislocation findings.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Cross-checked HEALTH and registration for endpoint definition, HR and CI, secondary function and dislocation, analysis denominators, and mixed public/Stryker support

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI1Mixed funding sources
Effect sizeE0Null
PrecisionC0The confidence interval leaves room for benefit

The scoring table and the verdict agree (D).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced reoperation within two yearsDHR 0.95 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.40) was null.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 180-center randomized surgical trial with blinded event adjudication723CIHR, NIH, ZonMw and other nonprofit support plus Stryker OrthopaedicsAny unplanned secondary hip procedure within 24 months57/718 (7.9%) versus 60/723 (8.3%); HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.40); absolute -0.4 pointsPivotal large mixed-funded RCT
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Bhandari M, Einhorn TA, Guyatt G, et al. Total Hip Arthroplasty or Hemiarthroplasty for Hip Fracture. N Engl J Med. 2019. PMID: 31557429. NCT00556842; ISRCTN59890378.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Total Hip Arthroplasty or Hemiarthroplasty for Hip Fracture - Null Evidence Grade D card
[Chamgap] Total Hip Arthroplasty or Hemiarthroplasty for Hip Fracture - Null — Evidence Grade D·34. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/joint-bone/total-hip-arthroplasty-hemiarthroplasty-femoral-neck-fracture-reoperation/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.