Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/324302
Title:
Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Authors:
Abdulkarim, Ali; Ellanti, Prasad; Motterlini, Nicola; Fahey, Tom; O'Byrne, John M
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopaedics, Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Finglas, Dublin; Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.
Citation:
Abdulkarim A et al. Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013, 5 (1):e8
Publisher:
Orthopedic reviews
Journal:
Orthopedic reviews
Issue Date:
22-Feb-2013
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/324302
DOI:
10.4081/or.2013.e8
PubMed ID:
23705066
Abstract:
The optimal method of fixation for primary total hip replacements (THR), particularly fixation with or without the use of cement is still controversial. In a systematic review and metaanalysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing cemented versus uncemented THRS available in the published literature, we found that there is no significant difference between cemented and uncemented THRs in terms of implant survival as measured by the revision rate. Better short-term clinical outcome, particularly an improved pain score can be obtained with cemented fixation. However, the results are unclear for the long-term clinical and functional outcome between the two groups. No difference was evident in the mortality and the post operative complication rate. On the other hand, the radiographic findings were variable and do not seem to correlate with clinical findings as differences in the surgical technique and prosthesis design might be associated with the incidence of osteolysis. We concluded in our review that cemented THR is similar if not superior to uncemented THR, and provides better short term clinical outcomes. Further research, improved methodology and longer follow up are necessary to better define specific subgroups of patients in whom the relative benefits of cemented and uncemented implant fixation can be clearly demonstrated.
Item Type:
Article
Language:
en
Keywords:
SURGERY
Local subject classification:
SURGERY, ORTHOPAEDIC; HIP REPLACEMENT
ISSN:
2035-8237

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorAbdulkarim, Alien_GB
dc.contributor.authorEllanti, Prasaden_GB
dc.contributor.authorMotterlini, Nicolaen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFahey, Tomen_GB
dc.contributor.authorO'Byrne, John Men_GB
dc.date.accessioned2014-08-06T08:53:34Z-
dc.date.available2014-08-06T08:53:34Z-
dc.date.issued2013-02-22-
dc.identifier.citationAbdulkarim A et al. Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013, 5 (1):e8en_GB
dc.identifier.issn2035-8237-
dc.identifier.pmid23705066-
dc.identifier.doi10.4081/or.2013.e8-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/324302-
dc.description.abstractThe optimal method of fixation for primary total hip replacements (THR), particularly fixation with or without the use of cement is still controversial. In a systematic review and metaanalysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing cemented versus uncemented THRS available in the published literature, we found that there is no significant difference between cemented and uncemented THRs in terms of implant survival as measured by the revision rate. Better short-term clinical outcome, particularly an improved pain score can be obtained with cemented fixation. However, the results are unclear for the long-term clinical and functional outcome between the two groups. No difference was evident in the mortality and the post operative complication rate. On the other hand, the radiographic findings were variable and do not seem to correlate with clinical findings as differences in the surgical technique and prosthesis design might be associated with the incidence of osteolysis. We concluded in our review that cemented THR is similar if not superior to uncemented THR, and provides better short term clinical outcomes. Further research, improved methodology and longer follow up are necessary to better define specific subgroups of patients in whom the relative benefits of cemented and uncemented implant fixation can be clearly demonstrated.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherOrthopedic reviewsen_GB
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Orthopedic reviewsen_GB
dc.subjectSURGERYen_GB
dc.subject.otherSURGERY, ORTHOPAEDICen_GB
dc.subject.otherHIP REPLACEMENTen_GB
dc.titleCemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Orthopaedics, Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Finglas, Dublin; Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalOrthopedic reviewsen_GB
dc.description.fundingNo fundingen
dc.description.provinceLeinsteren
dc.description.peer-reviewpeer-reviewen

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.