Dataset Information

The effect of posterior capsule repair in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prior studies have compared the posterior capsule repair group in primary total hip arthroplasty by posterior approach with the control group without posterior capsule repair suggesting that the posterior capsule repair group had better clinical outcomes. However, it is still a controversy which treatment is more helpful for hip diseases. The purpose of our article is to obtain the postoperative outcomes between the 2 procedures.

Methods

We performed a systematic search by browsing the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library. There is no restriction on the date of publication. Before we submit our manuscript, we have re-searched the literatures again, including the articles which directly compared the postoperative outcomes of the 2 procedures.

Results

A total of 8 comparative studies were included in our meta-analysis. The posterior capsule repair group showed less dislocation rate, higher HHS, and even less postoperative bleeding volume. Meanwhile, there is no significant difference in ROM between 2 groups.

Conclusion

In conclusion, according to current evidences, repairing posterior capsule during primary THA may have better functional outcomes, less dislocation incidence, and less loss of blood.

SUBMITTER: Sun X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7175585 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of posterior capsule repair in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sun Xiaobo X Zhu Xingyang X Zeng Yuqing Y Zhang Haitao H Zeng Jianchun J Feng Wenjun W Li Jie J Zeng Yirong Y

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20200421 1

<h4>Background</h4>Prior studies have compared the posterior capsule repair group in primary total hip arthroplasty by posterior approach with the control group without posterior capsule repair suggesting that the posterior capsule repair group had better clinical outcomes. However, it is still a controversy which treatment is more helpful for hip diseases. The purpose of our article is to obtain the postoperative outcomes between the 2 procedures.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic search ...[more]

PMID: 32316961

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) is estimated to grow in the following decades with a consequent increase of THA revisions (rTHA). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare modular and monoblock stem in rTHA surgery, focusing on clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates.MethodsA literature search was performed using the following search strategy: ((Modular stem) OR (monolithic stem)) AND (hip review) on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) compared clinical and radiological outcomes, and complication rates for monoblock and modular revision femoral stem were included. The risk of bias was assessed through the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. The Review Manager (RevMan) software was used for the meta-analysis. The rate of complications was assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe authors included 11 OS and one RCT with 3,671 participants (mean age: 68.4 years old). The mean follow-up was 46.9 months. There was no prevalence of subsidence for one type of stem. Mean subsidence was from 0.92 to 10 mm for modular stem and from 1 to 15 mm for monoblock stem. Postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) showed better results with modular stems without statistical significance [mean difference (MD) =1.32; 95% CI: -1.62 to 4.27; P=0.38]. No statistically significant difference was found for dislocations (OR =2.48; 95% CI: 0.67 to 9.14; P=0.17), infections (OR =1.07; 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.23; P=0.86), intraoperative fractures (OR =1.62; 95% CI: 0.42 to 6.21; P=0.48), and postoperative fractures (OR =1.60; 95% CI: 0.55 to 4.64; P=0.39).ConclusionsModular and monoblock stems show comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes for rTHA. Both stems are valid and effective options for managing femoral bone deficit in hip revision surgery. The main limitation of this study is the small number and low quality of enclosed studies that compared the two stems. Moreover, the modular stem is usually used for more complex cases with lower quality femoral bone stock.

Dataset Information

The effect of posterior capsule repair in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The effect of posterior capsule repair in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets