Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Contemporary cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a meta-analysis of forty-two thousand forty-six hips


Imam, Mohamed A; Shehata, Mohamed S A; Elsehili, Ahmed; Morsi, Mahmoud; Martin, Alexander; Shawq, Muhammad; Grubhofer, Florian; Chirodian, Nish; Narvani, Ali; Ernstbrunner, Lukas (2019). Contemporary cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a meta-analysis of forty-two thousand forty-six hips. International orthopaedics, 43(7):1715-1723.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION
Controversy exists regarding the use of cement for hemiarthroplasty to treat displaced intracapsular hip fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes between contemporary cemented and contemporary uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures.
METHODS
Literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central, up to May 2017, were performed. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing contemporary cemented with contemporary uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Data were pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a meta-analysis model. Studies with the Thompson and Austin Moore prostheses were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 29 studies (9 RCTs and 20 observational studies), with a total of 42,046 hips, were included. Meta-analysis showed that the cemented group was associated with fewer periprosthetic fractures (RR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.21, 0.91]), longer operative time (MD = 11.25 min, 95% CI [9.85, 12.66]), more intraoperative blood loss (MD = 68.72 ml, 95% CI [50.76, 86.69]), and higher heterotopic ossification (RR = 1.79, 95% CI [1.11, 2.88]) compared with the uncemented group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of post-operative hip function, hip pain, reoperation rate, prosthetic dislocations, aseptic loosening, wound infection, and hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis shows that contemporary cemented prostheses have less intra-operative and post-operative fractures, but longer operative time, more intra-operative blood loss, and heterotopic ossifications. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between both groups.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION
Controversy exists regarding the use of cement for hemiarthroplasty to treat displaced intracapsular hip fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes between contemporary cemented and contemporary uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures.
METHODS
Literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central, up to May 2017, were performed. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing contemporary cemented with contemporary uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Data were pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a meta-analysis model. Studies with the Thompson and Austin Moore prostheses were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 29 studies (9 RCTs and 20 observational studies), with a total of 42,046 hips, were included. Meta-analysis showed that the cemented group was associated with fewer periprosthetic fractures (RR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.21, 0.91]), longer operative time (MD = 11.25 min, 95% CI [9.85, 12.66]), more intraoperative blood loss (MD = 68.72 ml, 95% CI [50.76, 86.69]), and higher heterotopic ossification (RR = 1.79, 95% CI [1.11, 2.88]) compared with the uncemented group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of post-operative hip function, hip pain, reoperation rate, prosthetic dislocations, aseptic loosening, wound infection, and hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis shows that contemporary cemented prostheses have less intra-operative and post-operative fractures, but longer operative time, more intra-operative blood loss, and heterotopic ossifications. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between both groups.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
11 citations in Web of Science®
10 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 12 Feb 2020
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Balgrist University Hospital, Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Center
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Surgery
Health Sciences > Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Language:English
Date:27 March 2019
Deposited On:12 Feb 2020 12:41
Last Modified:29 Jul 2020 10:35
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:0341-2695
OA Status:Closed
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04325-x
PubMed ID:30919045

Download

Closed Access: Download allowed only for UZH members