Dataset Information

Choice of implant combinations in total hip replacement: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objective To compare the survival of different implant combinations for primary total hip replacement (THR). Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the EU Clinical Trials Register.Review methods Published randomised controlled trials comparing different implant combinations. Implant combinations were defined by bearing surface materials (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, or metal-on-metal), head size (large ?36 mm or small <36 mm), and fixation technique (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, or reverse hybrid). Our reference implant combination was metal-on-polyethylene (not highly cross linked), small head, and cemented. The primary outcome was revision surgery at 0-2 years and 2-10 years after primary THR. The secondary outcome was the Harris hip score reported by clinicians.Results 77 studies were included in the systematic review, and 15 studies (3177 hips) in the network meta-analysis for revision. There was no evidence that the risk of revision surgery was reduced by other implant combinations compared with the reference implant combination. Although estimates are imprecise, metal-on-metal, small head, cemented implants (hazard ratio 4.4, 95% credible interval 1.6 to 16.6) and resurfacing (12.1, 2.1 to 120.3) increase the risk of revision at 0-2 years after primary THR compared with the reference implant combination. Similar results were observed for the 2-10 years period. 31 studies (2888 patients) were included in the analysis of Harris hip score. No implant combination had a better score than the reference implant combination.Conclusions Newer implant combinations were not found to be better than the reference implant combination (metal-on-polyethylene (not highly cross linked), small head, cemented) in terms of risk of revision surgery or Harris hip score. Metal-on-metal, small head, cemented implants and resurfacing increased the risk of revision surgery compared with the reference implant combination. The results were consistent with observational evidence and were replicated in sensitivity analysis but were limited by poor reporting across studies.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015019435.

SUBMITTER: Lopez-Lopez JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5683044 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Choice of implant combinations in total hip replacement: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

López-López José A JA Humphriss Rachel L RL Beswick Andrew D AD Thom Howard H Z HHZ Hunt Linda P LP Burston Amanda A Fawsitt Christopher G CG Hollingworth William W Higgins Julian P T JPT Welton Nicky J NJ Blom Ashley W AW Marques Elsa M R EMR

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20171102

Objective To compare the survival of different implant combinations for primary total hip replacement (THR). Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the EU Clinical Trials Register.Review methods Published randomised controlled trials comparing different implant combinations. Implant combinations were defined by bearing surface m ...[more]

PMID: 29097396

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about how often patients have revision total hip replacement in the same hospital in which they had the primary procedure.MethodsWe examined Medicare claims data to identify patients who had primary total hip replacement from July 1995 to June 1996 and subsequently had revision through December 31, 2006. We examined whether the revision was performed in the same or different hospital from the primary procedure, with different hospitals being categorized as being in a lower, a higher, or the same hospital volume stratum. Hospital strata included twenty-five or fewer cases of total hip replacement annually in the Medicare population, twenty-six to fifty cases, fifty-one to 100 cases, and >100 cases. We calculated the number of revisions generated (primary procedures eventuating in revision) by hospitals in each volume stratum and the number of revisions performed in these hospitals.ResultsOf 4448 revision procedures, 3306 (74%) were performed in hospitals in the same volume stratum as the hospital where the primary procedure was performed. Four hundred twenty-nine revisions (9.6%) were performed in a lower-volume hospital, and 713 (16%) were performed in a higher-volume hospital. Thirty-one (3%) of 960 patients who had revision within one year after the primary total hip replacement had the revision in a lower-volume center, compared with 204 (15%) of 1393 who had revision more than six years after the primary procedure (odds ratio = 4.6 ; 95% confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.8). The ratio of revisions performed to revisions generated was 1.21 for the highest-volume centers and 0.86 for the lowest-volume centers.ConclusionsOf 4448 revisions examined in this study, 429 (<10%) were performed in centers with a lower volume of total hip replacement than the center at which the initial hip replacement was performed, whereas 713 (16%) were performed in higher-volume centers. Higher-volume centers performed 21% more revisions than they generated (531 revisions performed, compared with 438 generated). These data will help to inform health-care policy with regard to the utilization of resources for revision total hip replacement.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evolvements in the design, fixation methods, size, and bearing surface of implants for total hip replacement (THR) have led to a variety of options for healthcare professionals to consider. The need to determine the most optimal combinations of THR implant is warranted. This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness of different types of THR used for the treatment of end stage arthritis of the hip. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in major health databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews published from 2008 onwards comparing different types of primary THR in patients with end stage arthritis of the hip were included. RESULTS:Fourteen RCTs and five systematic reviews were included. Patients experienced significant post-THR improvements in Harris Hip scores, but this did not differ between impact types. There was a reduced risk of implant dislocation after receiving a larger femoral head size (36 mm vs. 28 mm; RR?=?0.17, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.78) or cemented cup (vs. cementless cup; pooled odds ratio: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.89). Recipients of cross-linked vs. conventional polyethylene cup liners experienced reduced femoral head penetration and revision. There was no impact of femoral stem fixation and cup shell design on implant survival rates. Evidence on mortality and complications (aseptic loosening, femoral fracture) was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of evidence was inconclusive due to poor reporting, missing data, or uncertainty in treatment estimates. The findings warrant cautious interpretation given the risk of bias (blinding, attrition), methodological limitations (small sample size, low event counts, short follow-up), and poor reporting. Long-term pragmatic RCTs are needed to allow for more definitive conclusions. Authors are encouraged to specify the minimal clinically important difference and power calculation for their primary outcome(s) as well CONSORT, PRISMA and STROBE guidelines to ensure better reporting and more reliable production and assessment of evidence.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of technology-assisted rehabilitation following total hip/knee replacement (THR/TKR). METHODS:Six electronic databases were searched without language or time restrictions for relevant studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); from inception to November 7th, 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to select eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of technology-based interventions, compared with usual care or no intervention for people undergoing THR/TKR. Two reviewers independently extracted trial details (e.g. patients' profile, intervention, outcomes, attrition and adverse events). Study methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS:We identified 21 eligible studies assessing telerehabilitation, game- or web-based therapy. There were 17 studies (N?=?2188) in post-TKR rehabilitation and 4 studies (N?=?783) in post-THR rehabilitation. Compared to usual care, technology-based intervention was more effective in reducing pain (mean difference (MD): -?0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): -?0.48, -?0.02; moderate evidence) and improving function measured with the timed up-and-go test (MD: -7.03; 95% CI: -?11.18, -?2.88) in people undergoing TKR. No between-group differences were observed in rates of hospital readmissions or treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in those studies. CONCLUSION:There is moderate-quality of evidence showed technology-assisted rehabilitation, in particular, telerehabilitation, results in a statistically significant improvement in pain; and low-quality of evidence for the improvement in functional mobility in people undergoing TKR. The effects were however too small to be clinically significant. For THR, there is very limited low-quality evidence shows no significant effects.

Project description:Rehabilitation, with an emphasis on physiotherapy and exercise, is widely promoted after total knee replacement. However, provision of services varies in content and duration. The aim of this study is to update the review of Minns Lowe and colleagues 2007 using systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of post-discharge physiotherapy exercise in patients with primary total knee replacement.We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL to October 4(th) 2013 for randomised evaluations of physiotherapy exercise in adults with recent primary knee replacement. Outcomes were: patient-reported pain and function, knee range of motion, and functional performance. Authors were contacted for missing data and outcomes. Risk of bias and heterogeneity were assessed. Data was combined using random effects meta-analysis and reported as standardised mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD).Searches identified 18 randomised trials including 1,739 patients with total knee replacement. Interventions compared: physiotherapy exercise and no provision; home and outpatient provision; pool and gym-based provision; walking skills and more general physiotherapy; and general physiotherapy exercise with and without additional balance exercises or ergometer cycling. Compared with controls receiving minimal physiotherapy, patients receiving physiotherapy exercise had improved physical function at 3-4 months, SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.62, -0.12), and pain, SMD -0.45 (95% CI -0.85, -0.06). Benefit up to 6 months was apparent when considering only higher quality studies. There were no differences for outpatient physiotherapy exercise compared with home-based provision in physical function or pain outcomes. There was a short-term benefit favouring home-based physiotherapy exercise for range of motion flexion. There were no differences in outcomes when the comparator was hydrotherapy, or when additional balancing or cycling components were included. In one study, a walking skills intervention was associated with a long-term improvement in walking performance. However, for all these evaluations studies were under-powered individually and in combination.After recent primary total knee replacement, interventions including physiotherapy and exercise show short-term improvements in physical function. However this conclusion is based on meta-analysis of a few small studies and no long-term benefits of physiotherapy exercise interventions were identified. Future research should target improvements to long-term function, pain and performance outcomes in appropriately powered trials.

Dataset Information

Choice of implant combinations in total hip replacement: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Choice of implant combinations in total hip replacement: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets