Dataset Information

Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size.

ABSTRACT: Background and purpose - Uncemented stems are gradually replacing cemented stems in hip revision surgery. We compared the risk of re-revision between uncemented and cemented revision stems and assessed whether the different fixation methods are used in similar femoral bone defects.Patients and methods - 867 patients operated on with uncemented or cemented stems in first-time hip revision surgery due to aseptic loosening performed 2006-2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Preoperative femoral bone defect size was assessed on radiographs of all patients. Cox regression models were fitted to estimate the adjusted risk of re-revision during different postoperative time periods. Re-revision of any component for any reason, and stem re-revision, as well as risk of cause-specific re-revision was estimated.Results - Most patients in both fixation groups had Paprosky class IIIA femoral bone defects prior to surgery, but there were more severe bone defects in the cemented group. The adjusted risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was higher in patients with uncemented compared with those with cemented revision stems during the first 3 years after index surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2-9). From the 4th year onward, the risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was similar (HR 0.5, CI 0.2-1.4). Uncemented revision stems conferred a higher risk of dislocation compared with cemented stems (HR 5, CI 1.2-23) during the first 3 years.Interpretation - Although not predominantly used in more complex femoral defects, uncemented revision stem fixation confers a slightly higher risk of re-revision during the first years, but this risk is attenuated after longer follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Tyson Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8159203 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of our study is to assess the methodology of overlapping systematic reviews related to cemented vs uncemented hip hemiarthroplasties for the treatment of femoral neck fractures to find the study with the best evidence. Also, we assess the gaps in methodology and information to help with direction of future studies.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in September 2022 using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcome data and characteristics of each study were extracted to see which treatment had better favorability. The outcomes and characteristics extracted from each study includes, first author, search date, publication journal and date, number of studies included, databases, level of evidence, software used, subgroup analyses that were conducted, and heterogeneity with the use of I2 statistics Methodological quality information was extracted from each study using four different methodologic scores (Oxford Levels of Evidence; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); Quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUROM); Oxman and Guyatt. After that, the Jadad decision algorithm was used to identify which studies in our sample contained the best available evidence. Finally, overlap of each systematic review was assessed using Corrected Covered Area (CCA) to look at redundancy and research waste among the systematic reviews published on the topic.ResultsAfter screening, 12 studies were included in our sample. For the Oxford Levels of Evidence, we found that all the studies were Level I evidence. For the QUORUM assessment, we had 1 study with the highest score of 18. Additionally, we did the Oxman and Guyatt assessment, where we found 4 studies with a maximum score of 6. Finally, we did an AMSTAR assessment and found 2 studies with a score of 9. After conducting the methodological scores; the authors determined that Li. L et al 2021 had the highest quality. In addition, it was found that the CCA found among the primary studies in each systematic review calculated to .22. Any CCA above .15 is considered "very high overlap".ConclusionsThe best available evidence suggests that Cemented HAs are better at preventing Prosthesis-related complications. Conversely, the best evidence also suggests that Cemented HA also results in longer operative time and increased intraoperative blood loss. When conducting future systematic reviews related to the topic, we ask that authors restrict conducting another systematic review until new evidence emerges so as not to confuse the clinical decision-making of physicians.

Dataset Information

Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets