PURPOSE: Total hip arthroplasty has been a very succesful orthopaedic procedure. The optimal fixation method of the acetabular component however, has not yet been defined. METHODS: We performed a systematic review using the Medline and Embase databases to find evidence for the superiority of cemented or cementless acetabular components on short- and long-term clinical and radiological parameters. Methodological quality for randomised trials was assessed using the van Tulder checklist, and for the non randomised studies we used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. RESULTS: Our search strategy revealed 16 randomised controlled trials (RCT) and 19 non RCT studies in which cemented and cementless acetabular components are compared. A best evidence analysis for complications, wear, osteolysis, migration and clinical scores showed no superiority for either cemented or cementless socket in the RCTs. A best evidence analysis for non RCT studies revealed better osteolysis, migration properties and aseptic loosening survival for cementless sockets; however, wear and overall survival favoured the cemented sockets. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that an orthopaedic surgeon should choose an established cemented or cementless socket for hip replacement based on patient characteristics, knowledge, experience and preference.
PURPOSE: Total hip arthroplasty has been a very succesful orthopaedic procedure. The optimal fixation method of the acetabular component however, has not yet been defined. METHODS: We performed a systematic review using the Medline and Embase databases to find evidence for the superiority of cemented or cementless acetabular components on short- and long-term clinical and radiological parameters. Methodological quality for randomised trials was assessed using the van Tulder checklist, and for the non randomised studies we used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. RESULTS: Our search strategy revealed 16 randomised controlled trials (RCT) and 19 non RCT studies in which cemented and cementless acetabular components are compared. A best evidence analysis for complications, wear, osteolysis, migration and clinical scores showed no superiority for either cemented or cementless socket in the RCTs. A best evidence analysis for non RCT studies revealed better osteolysis, migration properties and aseptic loosening survival for cementless sockets; however, wear and overall survival favoured the cemented sockets. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that an orthopaedic surgeon should choose an established cemented or cementless socket for hip replacement based on patient characteristics, knowledge, experience and preference.
Authors: Keijo T Mäkelä; Antti Eskelinen; Pekka Pulkkinen; Pekka Paavolainen; Ville Remes Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: John J Callaghan; Steve S Liu; Daniel E Firestone; Tameem M Yehyawi; Devon D Goetz; Jason Sullivan; David A Vittetoe; Michael R O'Rourke; Richard C Johnston Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Jelle J Halma; H Charles Vogely; Wouter J Dhert; Steven M Van Gaalen; Arthur de Gast Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Hugo C van der Veen; Hans-Peter W van Jonbergen; Rudolf W Poolman; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Jos J A M van Raay Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Simo S A Miettinen; Tatu J Mäkinen; Inari Laaksonen; Keijo Mäkelä; Heini Huhtala; Jukka Kettunen; Ville Remes Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Ivan Bagarić; Helena Sarac; Josip Anđelo Borovac; Tonko Vlak; Josip Bekavac; Andrija Hebrang Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-11-20 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Antonio Herrera; Jesús Mateo; Jorge Gil-Albarova; Antonio Lobo-Escolar; Elena Ibarz; Sergio Gabarre; Yolanda Más; Luis Gracia Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Simon S Jameson; James Mason; Paul Baker; Paul J Gregg; Martyn Porter; David J Deehan; Mike R Reed Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 3.717