Contemporary cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a meta-analysis of forty-two thousand forty-six hips
Controversy exists regarding the use of cement for hemiarthroplasty to treat displaced intracapsular hip fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes between contemporary cemented and contemporary uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures.
Literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central, up to May 2017, were performed. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing contemporary cemented with contemporary uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Data were pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a meta-analysis model. Studies with the Thompson and Austin Moore prostheses were excluded.
A total of 29 studies (9 RCTs and 20 observational studies), with a total of 42,046 hips, were included. Meta-analysis showed that the cemented group was associated with fewer periprosthetic fractures (RR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.21, 0.91]), longer operative time (MD = 11.25 min, 95% CI [9.85, 12.66]), more intraoperative blood loss (MD = 68.72 ml, 95% CI [50.76, 86.69]), and higher heterotopic ossification (RR = 1.79, 95% CI [1.11, 2.88]) compared with the uncemented group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of post-operative hip function, hip pain, reoperation rate, prosthetic dislocations, aseptic loosening, wound infection, and hospital stay.
This meta-analysis shows that contemporary cemented prostheses have less intra-operative and post-operative fractures, but longer operative time, more intra-operative blood loss, and heterotopic ossifications. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between both groups.
KeywordsCemented hemiarthroplasty Uncemented hemiarthroplasty Intracapsular hip fractures
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 5.Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Tornetta P 3rd, Swiontkowski MF, Berry DJ, Haidukewych G, Schemitsch EH, Hanson BP, Koval K, Dirschl D, Leece P, Keel M, Petrisor B, Heetveld M, Guyatt GH (2005) Operative management of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. An international survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2122–2130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Gjertsen JE, Lie SA, Vinje T, Engesaeter LB, Hallan G, Matre K, Furnes O (2012) More re-operations after uncemented than cemented hemiarthroplasty used in the treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck: an observational study of 11,116 hemiarthroplasties from a national register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:1113–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Higgins JP GS. (2008) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
- 17.Santini S, AR IB, Turi G (2005) Hip fractures in elderly patients treated with bipolar hemiarthroplasty: comparison between cemented and cementless implants. J Orthop Trauma:80–87Google Scholar
- 22.Agency HP (2006) Surveillance of surgical site infection in England: October 1997–September 2005. Health Protection Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 24.(2018) Prolonged pre-operative hospital stay as a predictive factor for early outcomes and mortality after geriatric hip fracture surgery: a single institution open prospective cohort study. Int Orthop 42(1):25–31Google Scholar