Dataset Information

To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and re-evaluation.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip has evolved to a very safe and cost-effective intervention with revision rates below 5% after 10 years. To this day, however, controversy remains on whether or not to cement the acetabular cup. METHODS:A comprehensive PubMed search of the English literature for studies published between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Studies comparing the clinical (revision rate, functionality), radiological (wear) or economic (cost) differences between cemented (cemented stem with cemented cup) and hybrid (cemented stem with uncemented cup) prostheses for primary osteoarthritis of the hip were identified as eligible. RESULTS:A total of 1032 studies were identified whereof twelve were included for qualitative synthesis. All studies concerning the risk of revision were based on registry data, covering a total of 365,693 cups. Cemented prostheses had a similar or lower risk of revision compared to hybrid prostheses in every study, but performed slightly worse on functionality and quality of life. While cemented prostheses were the cheapest option, hybrids were the most cost-effective. DISCUSSION:The widespread preference for cementless fixation of the acetabulum cannot be explained by a superior survival of cementless or hybrid models. Irrespective of age, cemented fixation of the acetabulum remains the gold standard to which other techniques should be compared.

SUBMITTER: Van Praet F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6771226 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and re-evaluation.

Van Praet Frank F Mulier Michiel M

SICOT-J 20191001

<h4>Introduction</h4>Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip has evolved to a very safe and cost-effective intervention with revision rates below 5% after 10 years. To this day, however, controversy remains on whether or not to cement the acetabular cup.<h4>Methods</h4>A comprehensive PubMed search of the English literature for studies published between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Studies comparing the clinical (revision rate, functionality), radiologi ...[more]

PMID: 31571579

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Posttraumatic arthritis (PTA) may develop years after acetabular fracture, hindering joint function and causing significant chronic musculoskeletal pain. Given the delayed onset of PTA, few studies have assessed outcomes of delayed total hip arthroplasty (THA) in acetabular fracture patients. This study systematically reviewed the literature for outcomes of THA in patients with PTA and prior acetabular fracture. METHODS:Pubmed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane library were searched for articles containing the keywords "acetabular", "fracture", "arthroplasty", and "post traumatic arthritis" published between 1995 and August 2017. Studies with less than 10 patients, less than 2 years of follow-up, conference abstracts, and non-English language articles were excluded. Data on patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and outcomes of delayed THA, including implant survival, complications, need for revision, and functional scores, was collected from eligible studies. RESULTS:With 1830 studies were screened and data from 10 studies with 448 patients were included in this review. The median patient age on date of THA was 51.5 years, ranging from 19 to 90 years. The median time from fracture to THA was 37 months, with a range of 27-74 months. Mean follow-up times ranged from 4 to 20 years. The mean Harris hip scores (HHS) improved from 41.5 pre-operatively, to 87.6 post-operatively. The most prevalent postoperative complications were heterotopic ossification (28%-63%), implant loosening (1%-24%), and infection (0%-16%). The minimum 5-year survival of implants ranged from 70% to 100%. Revision rates ranged from 2% to 32%. CONCLUSION:Despite the difficulties associated with performing THA in patients with PTA from previous acetabular fracture (including soft tissue scarring, existing hardware, and acetabular bone loss) and the relatively high complication rates, THA in patients with PTA following prior acetabular fracture leads to significant improvement in pain and function at 10-year follow-up. Further high quality randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm the outcomes after delayed THA in these patients.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Adequate initial fixation of the uncemented acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty is necessary to achieve long-term survival. Although screw fixation contributes to improved cup stability, there is currently no consensus on the use of this method. This study aimed to assess the existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of cup fixation in total hip arthroplasty without screws. Materials and Methods: We searched the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify RCTs published before February 2022. Primary outcomes were reoperation, cup migration, and Harris Hip Score. Secondary outcomes were the presence of a radiolucent line in the acetabular region, translation and rotation movement, and polyethylene wear. We conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects models. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for outcomes of interest; the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to summarize the body of evidence. Results: We included six reports from four studies. Total hip arthroplasty without screw fixation to the acetabular cup had little to no effect on reoperation (pooled relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-6.68; I2 = 0%), cup migration (pooled relative risk, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-10.33; I2 = 1%), Harris Hip Score (mean difference, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, -1.31-3.70; I2 = 0%), radiolucent line (pooled relative risk, 5.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-109.35), translation and rotation of all axes, and polyethylene wear (mean difference, 0.01; 95% confidence interval, -0.01-0.04; I2 = 0%), with very low certainty of evidence on all measures. Conclusions: The efficacy of acetabular cups without screw fixation in total hip arthroplasty remains uncertain, suggesting the need for prudent clinical application. Further large-scale, well-designed studies with low risk of bias are required.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17). RESULTS:The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included. CONCLUSIONS:Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

Dataset Information

To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and re-evaluation.

Publications

To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and re-evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets