Literature DB >> 26637673

A randomised controlled trial of cemented and cementless femoral components for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a bone mineral density study.

A Tice1, P Kim1, L Dinh1, J J Ryu1, P E Beaulé1.   

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing was to compare the effect of using a cementless or cemented femoral component on the subsequent bone mineral density (BMD) of the femoral neck. This was a single-centre, prospective, double-blinded control trial which randomised 120 patients (105 men and 15 women) with a mean age of 49.4 years (21 to 68) to receive either a cemented or cementless femoral component. Follow-up was to two years. Outcome measures included total and six-point region-of-interest BMD of the femoral neck, radiological measurements of acetabular inclination, neck-shaft and stem-shaft angles, and functional outcome scores including the Harris hip score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the University of California at Los Angeles activity scale. In total, 17 patients were lost to follow-up leaving 103 patients at two years. There were no revisions in the cementless group and three revisions (5%) in the cemented group (two because of hip pain and one for pseudotumour). The total BMD was significantly higher in the cementless group at six months (p < 0.001) and one year (p = 0.01) than in the cemented group, although there was a loss of statistical significance in the difference at two years (p = 0.155). All patient outcomes improved significantly: there were no significant differences between the two groups. The results show better preservation of femoral neck BMD with a cementless femoral component after two years of follow-up. Further investigation is needed to establish whether this translates into improved survivorship. ©2015 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cemented vs. Cementless; Hip Resurfacing; Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT)

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26637673     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.36110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  5 in total

1.  Less periprosthetic bone loss following the anterolateral approach to the hip compared with the direct lateral approach.

Authors:  Terje O Ugland; Glenn Haugeberg; Svein Svenningsen; Stein H Ugland; Øystein H Berg; Are Hugo Pripp; Lars Nordsletten
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.717

2.  Midterm analysis of the seleXys cup with ceramic inlay.

Authors:  Tamas Halasi; David Kieser; Christopher M A Frampton; Gary J Hooper
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2016-11-09

3.  Surgical trial design - learning curve and surgeon volume: Determining whether inferior results are due to the procedure itself, or delivery of the procedure by the surgeon.

Authors:  A H R W Simpson; C R Howie; J Norrie
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.853

4.  Comparison between Cementless and Cemented Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jun-Il Yoo; Yong-Han Cha; Kap-Jung Kim; Ha-Yong Kim; Won-Sik Choy; Sun-Chul Hwang
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2018-12-06

Review 5.  Clinical Outcomes of Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty versus Total Hip Arthroplasty: Assessing the Potential Impact of Cement Use and Pre-Injury Activity Levels in Elderly Patients with Femoral Neck Fractures.

Authors:  Jun-Il Yoo; Yong-Han Cha; Jung-Taek Kim; Chan-Ho Park
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2019-05-30
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.