Copyright
©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Orthop. Aug 18, 2023; 14(8): 630-640
Published online Aug 18, 2023. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v14.i8.630
Published online Aug 18, 2023. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v14.i8.630
Table 1 Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of observational studies
Ref. | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | Total | |||||
Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the non-exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis | Assessment of outcome | Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | Adequacy of follow up of cohorts | Total number of stars | |
Tyson et al[39], 2021 | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
Weiss et al[38], 2011 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 |
Iorio et al[6], 2008 | * | * | - | * | * | * | * | * | 7 |
Table 2 Study characteristics
Ref. | Country | Journal | Study type | Centres | Level of evidence | Number of stems | Stem brand for cemented | Stem brand for uncemented |
Tyson et al[39], 2021 | Sweden | Acta Orthopaedica | Observational study | Multi | III | 266 cemented, 601 uncemented | Lubinus SPII 123 (46%), exeter 94 (35%), spectron 49 (18%) | MP 291 (48%), restoration 162 (27%), wagner 78 (13%), revitan 70 (12%) |
Weiss et al[38], 2011 | Sweden | Acta Orthopaedica | Observational study | Multi | III | 1073 cemented, 812 uncemented | Lubinus SPII 610 (57%), exeter long stem 248 (23%), spectron revision hip system 215 (20%) | MP stem 812 (100%) |
Iorio et al[6], 2008 | United States | Journal of arthroplasty | Prospective cohort study | Single | II | 43 cemented, 43 uncemented | 13 premise, 6 precision, 5 reliance (stryker), 3 re cemented, 2 charnley elite plus, 2 ultima, 1 PFC (depuy), 4 calcar replacing, 7 extra long | S-ROM modular metaphyseal femoral stem 31 (72%), calcar replacing 9 (23%), extra long 3 (7.7%) |
Table 3 Patient’s demographics
Ref. | Gender M | Age (SD) | Follow up in years (SD) |
Tyson et al[39], 2021 | Uncemented 318 (53%), cemented 138 (52%) | Uncemented 72 (10), cemented 74 (9) | Uncemented 4 (3), cemented 5 (3) |
Weiss et al[38], 2011 | Uncemented 443 (55%), cemented 544 (51%) | Uncemented 72 (11), cemented 76 (9) | Uncemented 3.4 (2.9), cemented 4.2 (2.5) |
Iorio et al[6], 2008 | 22 cemented (51%), 22 uncemented (51%) | Uncemented 71.2 (9), cemented 67.5 (10) | Uncemented 7 (1), cemented 9 (1.5) |
Table 4 Study characteristics for the studies about the uncemented stem
Ref. | Total number | Country | Journal | Study type | Centres | Level of evidence |
Mahoney et al[20], 2010 | 40 | United States | JOA | ORS | Single | 3 |
Hasegawa et al[22], 2021 | 45 | Japan | International Orthopaedics | ORS | Single | 3 |
Zheng et al[23], 2021 | 34 | China | OSJ | ORS | Single | 3 |
Wallace et al[24], 2020 | 55 | United Kingdom | J Arthroplasty | ORS | Single | 3 |
Zang et al[25], 2019 | 40 | China/Japan | JOS (Hong Kong) | ORS | Single | 3 |
Herry et al[26], 2019 | 116 | Multi | International Orthopaedics | ORS | Multi | 3 |
Shen et al[27], 2014 | 34 | China | COAJ | ORS | Single | 3 |
Wang et al[28], 2020 | 73 | China | Hip International | ORS | Single | 3 |
Singh et al[34], 2013 | 53 | India | IJO | ORS | Single | 3 |
Tsukeoka et al[41], 2011 | 14 | Japan | Modern Rheumatology | ORS | Single | 3 |
Oetgen et al[29], 2008 | 28 | United States | JOT | ORS | Single | 3 |
Sotereanos et al[36], 2006 | 16 | United States | JBJS | ORS | Single | 3 |
Philippot et al[35], 2009 | 43 | France | OTSR | ORS | Single | 3 |
Thorey et al[30], 2008 | 79 | Germany | AOTS | ORS | Single | 3 |
Malkani et al[31], 1996 | 74 | United States | JOA | ORS | Single | 3 |
Mulliken et al[32], 1996 | 66 | Canada | CORR | ORS | Single | 3 |
Meding et al[33], 1994 | 24 | United States | JOA | ORS | Single | 3 |
Table 5 Patients demographic for the study involved uncemented stem
Ref. | Gender male/female | Age in years (SD) | Follow up in years (SD) |
Mahoney et al[20], 2010 | 18/22 | 64 (30.5) | 10.2 (2.8) |
Zhao et al[21], 2009 | 12/8 | 65 (9.5) | 3 (1.1) |
Hasegawa et al[22], 2021 | 12/33 | 62.6 (26) | 13.8 (2.2) |
Zheng et al[23], 2021 | 16/18 | 63.9 (11.7) | 9.1 (2.5) |
Wallace et al[24], 2020 | 19/36 | 66.4 (9.3) | 13.2 (2.17) |
Zang et al[25], 2019 | 15/25 | 62 (19.5) | 15.7 (7.1) |
Herry et al[26], 2019 | 55/61 | 68 (12) | 10 (3) |
Shen et al[27], 2014 | 21/13 | 65 (13.5) | 6 (1.5) |
Wang et al[28], 2020 | 33/42 | 62.6 (16.5) | 12.6 (2) |
Singh et al[34], 2013 | 42/6 | 54.7 (15.3) | 14 (4.5) |
Oetgen et al[29], 2008 | 18/10 | 59 (12) | 5.5 (1.5) |
Sotereanos et al[36], 2006 | 9/7 | 66 (17.5) | 7.4 (6.5) |
Philippot et al[35], 2009 | 10/33 | 54 (17.5) | 5.3 (1.5) |
Thorey et al[30], 2008 | 33/46 | 72.4 (28.5) | 4 (2) |
Malkani et al[31], 1996 | 40/ 34 | 67.1 (10.1) | 6.8 (3.9) |
Mulliken et al[32], 1996 | 31/32 | 62 (12) | 3 (1) |
Meding et al[33], 1994 | 17/7 | 63.8 (29) | 3.6 (2) |
Table 6 Study characteristics of the cemented stem
Ref. | Country | Journal | Study type | Canters | Level of evidence | Total number | Gender male/female | Age | Follow up in years (SD) |
Te Stroet et al[14], 2014 | Netherlands | BJJ | ROS | Single centre | 3 | 37 | 17/20 | 76 (39- 93) | 9 (4) |
Randhawa et al[15], 2009 | United Kingdom | JOT | ROS | Single centre | 3 | 57 | 27/30 | 73 (37-94) | 3.25 (3) |
Stigbrand and Ullmark, 2017 | Sweden | JOA | ROS | Single centre | 3 | 69 | 40/29 | 69 | 7 (3.2) |
Pallaver et al[19], 2018 | Switzerland | AOTS | ROS | Single | 3 | 178 | 126/52 | 68.4 (36-90) | 9.3 (5.2) |
Davis et al[17], 2003 | United States | JBJS | ROS | Single | 3 | 48 | 27/21 | 67 (47-82) | 6.5 (2) |
Turner et al[18], 1987 | United States | JOA | ROS | Single | 3 | 165 | 81/84 | 62.1 (22-92) | 6.7 (1.5) |
Table 7 Outcomes of the uncemented stem
Ref. | Intraoperative periprosthetic fracture (%) | Aseptic loosening (%) | Dislocation (%) | Infection (%) |
Mahoney et al[20], 2010 | 1 (2.5) | 1 (2.5) | 13 (32.5) | 1 (2.5) |
Hasegawa et al[22], 2021 | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | 0 (0) |
Zheng et al[23], 2021 | 7 (20.5) | 3 (8.8) | 1 (2.9) | 3 (8.8) |
Wallace et al[24], 2020 | 2 (3.6) | 0 (0) | 3 (5.4) | 2 (3.6) |
Zang et al[25], 2019 | 11 (27.5) | 1 (2.5) | 2 (5.0) | 2 (5.0) |
Herry et al[26], 2019 | 12 (10.3) | 4 (3.4) | 2 (1.7) | 3 (2.5) |
Shen et al[27], 2014 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Tsukeoka et al[41], 2011 | 9 (64.2) | NA | 1 (7.1) | NA |
Wang et al[28], 2020 | 0 (0) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) |
Singh et al[34], 2013 | 0 (0) | NA | 3 (5.6) | 7 (13.2) |
Oetgen et al[29], 2008 | 3 (10.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | NA |
Sotereanos et al[36], 2006 | NA | NA | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Philippot et al[35], 2009 | 2 (4.6) | NA | 1 (2.3) | 3 (6.9) |
Thorey et al[30], 2008 | 16 (20.2) | 2 (2.5) | NA | 2 (2.5) |
Malkani et al[31], 1996 | 34 (45.9) | 5 (6.75) | 2 (2.7) | 1 (1.3) |
Mulliken et al[32], 1996 | 20 (30.3) | 12(18.1) | NA | NA |
Meding et al[33], 1994 | 4 (16.6) | 0 (0) | 3 (12.5) | 1 (4.1) |
Table 8 Outcomes of the cemented stem
Ref. | Periprosthetic fracture | Aseptic loosening | Dislocation | Infection |
Te Stroet et al[14], 2014 | 9 (24.3) | 0 (0) | 3 (8.1) | 4 (10.8) |
Randhawa et al[15], 2009 | 4 (7.0) | 1 (1.7) | 1 (1.7) | 7 (12.2) |
Stigbrand and Ullmark, 2017 | 3 (4.3) | 4 (5.7) | 2 (2.8) | NA |
Pallaver et al[19], 2018 | 2 (1.1) | 3 (1.7) | NA | 6 (3.3) |
Davis et al[17], 2003 | 7 (14.5) | 10 (20.8) | 7 (14.5) | 1 (2.0) |
Turner et al[18], 1987 | 34 (20.6) | 7 (4.2) | 4 (2.4) | 3 (1.8) |
- Citation: Elbardesy H, Anazor F, Mirza M, Aly M, Maatough A. Cemented versus uncemented stems for revision total hip replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Orthop 2023; 14(8): 630-640
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v14/i8/630.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i8.630