Background: Cemented stems are currently recommended for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) due to their reduced risk of revision and periprosthetic fractures (PPF). However, cementless stems with a collar may enhance implant stability. This study assessed the effect of collar addition on revision rates and implant survival in conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA), double mobility THA (THA DM) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) for FNFs.
Hypothesis: We hypothesized that the presence of a collar on cementless stems could play a protective role against both all-cause and periprosthetic fracture revision risk in FNFs.
Methods: A total of 5,189 hip procedures for FNFs, recorded by the Swiss National Joint Registry between 2012 and 2023, were included. Patients received Corail™ collarless cementless (n = 900), collared cementless (n = 2,028), and cemented stems (n = 2,261). Cumulative percent revision (CPR) was calculated for all-cause revision and revision for PPF. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval were estimated with adjustment for age, gender, BMI, ASA scores, approach, and size of stems to compare revision risk among the three groups. Subgroup analyses were performed among implant types: HA, THA DM, and THA.
Results: Cemented stems had a lower all-cause revision rate than collarless stems (3.2 versus 6.9%, p < .001) and for PPF (0.5 versus 2.9%, p < .001). However, no statistical difference was found when cemented stems were compared with collared stems. After adjustment, collarless stems showed a significantly higher risk of all-cause revision (HR: 1.91 (1.30-2.79], p < .001) and PPF (HR: 5.82 (2.68-12.67], p < .001) compared with cemented stems. No significant difference was found between collared and cemented stems. Increased ASA, BMI 30-34.9, and posterior approach also predicted higher revision risk. In subgroup analyses, cemented and collared stems were consistently associated with a lower or equivalent risk of all-cause revision compared to collarless cementless stems regardless of the implant type.
Conclusion: Collared and cemented stems demonstrated equivalent and superior implant survival compared to collarless stems for both all-cause and PPF revisions. Collared stems appear to be a viable alternative to cemented stems when treating FNFs.
Level of evidence: III.
Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into hip and knee surgery has been evolving rapidly, with significant implications for diagnostics, surgical planning, and outcome prediction. However, there has been limited literature with comprehensive overview of AI in arthroplasty surgery. This bibliometric analysis aims to identify the 50 most cited articles on AI in hip and knee surgery, highlighting key contributors, research trends, and methodological patterns.
Hypothesis: We hypothesized that AI has generated a growing body of influential research in hip and knee surgery, with specific trends in applications, geographic distribution, and methodological approaches.
Material and methods: A systematic search was performed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) on July 14, 2025, using predefined keywords related to AI and hip/knee surgery. Original research articles were screened and ranked by citation count. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze bibliometric variables including authorship, journal impact factor, country of origin, and AI techniques.
Results: The 50 most cited articles, published between 2016 and 2023, accumulated a total of 7,140 citations (mean: 142.8; range: 59-735). The most cited article received 735 citations. The United States was the most prolific contributor, accounting for 27 articles (54.0%) and 2,772 citations (38.8%). Deep learning was the most frequently used AI technique (29 articles, 58% of articles). Knee-related topics were predominant, addressed in 32 articles (64.0%) while hip-related studies represented 18 articles (36.0%). Thematic focus was predominantly diagnostic with 31 articles (62.0%) centered on radiographic interpretation. There was no significant correlation between journal impact factor and citation count (Pearson's r = 0.21; p = 0.28).
Discussion: This bibliometric analysis outlines the foundational literature driving AI adoption in hip and knee surgery. While the field is rapidly expanding, research remains unevenly distributed, with limited focus on hip surgery and treatment-oriented AI. Future studies should emphasize clinical validation, generalizability, and the integration of explainable AI into orthopedic practice.
Level of evidence: IV.

