Cement augmentation
Cement augmentation has been studied in 6 papers since 2021: 3 observational studies in people, 2 reviews; 1 in the past year. The newest paper, Oct 29, 2025: “Comparison of mechanical and clinical outcomes between cement-augmented and conventional cephalomedullary nailing in osteoporotic trochanteric fractures: a propensity score-matched cohort study”.
6 papers study it12 findingsUpdated
“Among radiographic parameters, ΔRotation angle in the CA group was significantly smaller than that of the BO group (p = 0.03).”
None of its findings points the other way.
- 4 independent labs in 3 countries
- Funders: Yonsei University and 1 more
- Humans3
What did studies of Cement augmentation find?
10Studies of Cement augmentation measured 10 outcomes; the most studied are mortality (2 studies), harris hip score (1) and excessive telescopic sliding (1).
Mortality
no changein humans2OR 0.7
2 studies
Mortality
no changein humans2OR 0.7
Cement augmentation has no effect on mortality in humans (25.0% vs 19.6%, p = 0.78).
“1-year mortality was similar between groups (CA 25.0% vs. non-CA 19.6%, p = 0.78)”
Humansosteoporotic trochanteric fractures1 year
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
Cement augmentation has no effect on mortality in humans (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.3).
“Mortality was equal in both groups (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.4-1.3)”
Reviewtrochanteric femur fractures following low energy trauma
PloS one
Harris hip score
no changein humans1
1 study
Harris hip score
no changein humans1
Cement augmentation has no effect on harris hip score in humans.
“Final follow-up HHS and Eq. 5D scores were similar between the CA and non-CA groups.”
Humansosteoporotic trochanteric fractures
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
Excessive telescopic sliding
no changein humans1
1 study
Excessive telescopic sliding
no changein humans1
Cement augmentation has no effect on excessive telescopic sliding in humans (10.7% vs 12.5%, p = 1.00).
“Excessive sliding of the proximal screw occurred in 3 patients (10.7%) with CA versus 7 (12.5%) without (p = 1.00)”
Humansosteoporotic trochanteric fractures19.2 ± 18.3 weeks vs 23.0 ± 22.5 weeks
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
Implant cut-out
no changein humans1
1 study
Implant cut-out
no changein humans1
Cement augmentation has no effect on implant cut-out in humans (0/28 vs 1/56 (1.8%), p = 1.00).
“After matching, the CA group had no instances of cut-out (0/28), compared to 1 case (1/56, 1.8%) in the non-CA group (p = 1.00)”
Humansosteoporotic trochanteric fractures19.2 ± 18.3 weeks vs 23.0 ± 22.5 weeks
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
Physical function
upin humans1
1 study
Physical function
upin humans1
Cement augmentation improves physical function in humans (p < 0.01).
“For the ΔParker score, the CA group showed less of a decrease than in the BO group (p < 0.01).”
Human trialintertrochanteric femur fractures
Injury
Postoperative pain
downin humans1
1 study
Postoperative pain
downin humans1
Cement augmentation decreases postoperative pain in humans (p < 0.01).
“Visual analog scale (VAS) for the passive range of motion (ROM) and for full-load walking in the CA group was significantly lower than those in the BO group (p < 0.01).”
Human trialintertrochanteric femur fractures
Injury
Implant micro-motion
downin humans1
1 study
Implant micro-motion
downin humans1
Cement augmentation decreases implant micro-motion in humans (p = 0.03).
“Among radiographic parameters, ΔRotation angle in the CA group was significantly smaller than that of the BO group (p = 0.03).”
Human trialintertrochanteric femur fractures
Injury
Reoperation
no changein humans1
1 study
Reoperation
no changein humans1
Cement augmentation has no effect on reoperation in humans.
“No significant effect was observed in favor of cement augmentation on all these outcomes.”
Reviewtrochanteric fracture with internal fixation
European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society
Complication rate
downin humans1OR 0.3
1 study
Complication rate
downin humans1OR 0.3
Cement augmentation decreases complication rate in humans (28.3% versus 47.2%, OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7).
“Cement augmentation has a significantly lower overall complication rate (28.3% versus 47.2%) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.3 (95%CI 0.1-0.7).”
Reviewtrochanteric femur fractures following low energy trauma
PloS one
Fracture fixation stability
upin reviews1
1 study
Fracture fixation stability
upin reviews1
Cement augmentation increases fracture fixation stability.
“In several biomechanical studies, improvements in stability have been demonstrated with cement augmentation devices”
Review
Preprint
What is Cement augmentation linked with?
1Studies link Cement augmentation with 1 measure, most often re-operation (1 study).
Re-operation
downin humans1OR 0.2
1 study
Re-operation
downin humans1OR 0.2
Cement augmentation lowers the risk of re-operation in humans (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.7).
“Cement augmentation also carries a lower risk for re-interventions (OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1-0.7)”
Reviewtrochanteric femur fractures following low energy trauma
PloS one