Letter to the editor: cemented hemiarthroplasty confers less pain and better mobility than uncemented hemiarthroplasty.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cai XZ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2628514 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Letter to the editor: cemented hemiarthroplasty confers less pain and better mobility than uncemented hemiarthroplasty.
Cai Xun-Zi XZ Chen Xian-Zhen XZ Yan Shi-Gui SG
Clinical orthopaedics and related research 20081127 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:Although hemiarthroplasties are an important treatment for femoral neck fractures, the literature does not provide a clear approach for selecting the implant fixation method. Therefore, we performed a systematic search of the medical literature and identified 11 prospective and retrospective studies that compared results between cemented and uncemented femoral implant fixation methods. After independent blind data extraction, we compared variables between cemented and uncemented cohorts using two different meta-analysis models. Pooled data represented 1632 cemented and 981 uncemented hemiarthroplasties (average age of patients, 78.9 and 77.5 years, respectively). The average operating room times and blood loss volumes were 95 minutes and 467 mL, respectively, for the cemented and 80 minutes and 338 mL for the uncemented cohorts. Postoperative mortality rates, overall complications, and pain were similar between the two cohorts. Despite a few potential trends, we found few statistical differences between cemented and uncemented techniques based on reported outcome measurements. In addition, inspection of this literature underscored the lack of and need for consistent and standardized reporting of outcome variables regarding these procedures.
| S-EPMC2584290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThompson and Austin Moore prostheses have been commonly used in hemiarthroplasties for displaced femoral neck fractures. There has been considerable debate about which of these prostheses is preferred. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare historical data for clinical outcomes of cemented Thompson and uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty in displaced femoral neck fractures.MethodsWe searched Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Ovid and Web of Science for relevant articles up to February 2019. The included outcomes measured were hip function, hip pain, implant-related complications, surgical complications, reoperation rate and hospital stay. The data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two compared groups in a meta-analysis model.ResultsTen studies (four RCTs and six observational studies) with a total of 4378 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled RR showed that the Thompson group was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative hip pain (RR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.54, 0.80]), lesser reoperation rate (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.24, 0.88]), lesser intraoperative fractures (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.09, 0.25]), but a longer operative time (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI [2.08, 22.00]) in comparison to the Austin Moore group. The effect estimate did not favour either group in terms of hip function, periprosthetic fractures, prosthetic dislocations, wound infection, mortality and hospital stay.ConclusionEvidence shows that Thompson hemiarthroplasty is better than Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty in terms of hip pain, reoperation rate and intraoperative fractures. Whereas the postoperative hip function is equivalent, these results could be considered when assessing the outcomes in modern hips.
| S-EPMC6753858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveControversy still exists regarding using cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the two surgical techniques in femoral neck fracture patients over 70 years old.MethodsWe searched PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI and VIP Database from inception to December 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest include postoperative hip function, residue pain, complication rates, mortality, reoperation rate, operation time and intraoperative blood loss. Odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) from each trial were pooled using random-effects model or fixed-effects model given on the heterogeneity of the included studies.Results7 RCTs involving 1,125 patients (1,125 hips) were eligible for meta-analysis. Our results demonstrate that cemented hemiarthroplasty is associated with better postoperative hip function (OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P = 0.002), lower residual pain (OR = 0.43, 95%CI, 0.29-0.64; P<0.0001), less implant-related complications (OR = 0.15, 95%CI, 0.09-0.26; P<0.00001) and longer operation time (WMD = 7.43 min, 95% CI, 5.37-9.49 min; P<0.00001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in mortality, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications, local complications, general complications, reoperation rate and intraoperative blood loss.ConclusionsCompared with uncemented hemiarthroplasty, the existing evidence indicates that cemented hemiarthroplasty can achieve better hip function, lower residual pain and less implant-related complications with no increased risk of mortality, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications, general complications, local complications and reoperation rate in treating elderly patients with femoral neck fractures.
| S-EPMC3720851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceConsensus guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that cemented fixation is more effective than uncemented fixation in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures. Given that these recommendations are based on research performed outside the United States, it is uncertain whether these findings also reflect the US experience.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes associated with cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of 12 491 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent hemiarthroplasty treatment of a hip fracture between 2009 and 2017 at 1 of the 36 hospitals owned by Kaiser Permanente, a large US health maintenance organization. Patients were followed up until membership termination, death, or the study end date of December 31, 2017.ExposuresHemiarthroplasty (prosthetic replacement of the femoral head) fixation via bony growth into a porous-coated implant (uncemented) or with cement.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, defined as any reoperation performed after the index procedure involving exchange of the existing implant for reasons other than infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, postdischarge, and overall), 90-day medical complications, 90-day emergency department visits, and 90-day unplanned readmissions.ResultsAmong 12 491 patients in the study cohort who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture (median age, 83 years; 8660 women [69.3%]), 6042 (48.4%) had undergone uncemented fixation and 6449 (51.6%) had undergone cemented fixation, and the median length of follow-up was 3.8 years. In the multivariable regression analysis controlling for confounders, uncemented fixation was associated with a significantly higher risk of aseptic revision (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation, 3.0% vs 1.3%; absolute difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.43-2.19]; P < .001). Of the 6 prespecified secondary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortality (1.7% for uncemented fixation vs 2.0% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.21]; P = .61) and overall mortality (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation: 20.0% for uncemented fixation vs 22.8% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]; P = .08).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system, uncemented fixation, compared with cemented fixation, was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of aseptic revision. These findings suggest that US surgeons should consider cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the absence of contraindications.
| S-EPMC7078801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Management of elbow arthritis in younger and higher demand patients is challenging and may benefit from a distal humerus hemiarthroplasty that employs a noncemented method of implant fixation and stabilizes the elbow through ligament reconstruction. By not replacing both articulating surfaces, hardware longevity may be improved. We describe a novel system that may be indicated for the treatment of posttraumatic or primary osteoarthritis of the distal humerus. The step-by-step technique for surgical implantation of this uncemented distal humerus hemiarthroplasty is described and illustrated.
| S-EPMC10837189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty in the elderly, the choice of the cemented method remains controversial. This meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the impact of cemented vs uncemented on outcomes for hemiarthroplasty in the elderly.MethodsThis study included randomized controlled trials comparing the postoperative effects of cemented vs uncemented in patients with hemiarthroplasty. With no language restrictions, we searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Collaboration), Clinical Trials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, as well as gray literature with no language restrictions from January 1966 to April 2023. Data were quantitatively summarized using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was 1-year mortality.ResultsThis study included 13 randomized controlled trials with 3485 patients. The primary outcomes of the meta-analysis showed that cemented fixation in elderly patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty was superior to noncemented in 1-year mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77, 0.97). Moreover, cemented was associated with a reduced risk of intraoperative periprosthetic fracture (RR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.50), postoperative periprosthetic fracture (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.16,0.72), and loosening (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.97).ConclusionsCemented hemiarthroplasty is superior to noncemented in terms of survival. Moreover, cementation reduces the incidence of some implant-related complications. More extensive trials are needed to provide adequate guidance for choosing the proper cemented method.
| S-EPMC11404976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHip fracture is a serious injury in adults, especially those aged over 60 years. The most common type of hip fracture (displaced intracapsular) is treated for the majority of patients with a partial hip replacement (hemiarthroplasty). The hemiarthroplasty implant can be fixed to the bone with or without bone cement. Cement is the current recommended technique but recently some risks have been identified, which could potentially be avoided by using uncemented implants. Controversy, therefore, remains about which type of hemiarthroplasty offers patients the best outcomes.This is the protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing cemented hemiarthroplasty versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for patients 60 years and over with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture.Methods and analysisMulticentre (a minimum of seven UK hospitals), multisurgeon, parallel group, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 60 years and older with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty surgery are eligible. Participants will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a cemented hemiarthroplasty or a modern hydroxyapatite coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Otherwise all care will be in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. A minimum of 1128 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a 0.075-point difference in the primary endpoint: health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels) at 4 months postinjury. The treatment effect will be estimated using a two-sided t-test adjusted for age, gender and cognitive impairment based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications including revision surgery and cause, mobility status, residential status, health-related quality of life at 1 and 12 months and health resource use. A within-trial economic analysis will be conducted.Ethics, dissemination and fundingWales Research Ethics Committee 5 approved the feasibility phase on 2 December 2016 (16/WA/0351) and the definitive trial on 22 November 2017 (17/WA/0383). This study is sponsored by the University of Oxford and funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit (PB-PG-0215-36043 and PB-PG-1216-20021). A manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal will be prepared and the results shared with patients via local mechanisms at participating centres.Trial registration numberISRCTN18393176.
| S-EPMC6924810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In Response To: Walker RH. Reply to: Tardive dyskinesia-like syndrome due to drugs that do not block dopamine receptors: rare or non-existent: literature review. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov. 2019; 9. doi: 10.7916/3rez-p096 Original Article: D'Abreu A, Friedman JH. Tardive dyskinesia-like syndrome due to drugs that do not block dopamine receptors: rare or non-existent: literature review. Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov. 2018; 8. doi: 10.7916/D8FF58Z9.
| S-EPMC6377913 | biostudies-other