Purpose: The neck of femur fractures in the elderly is a global concern. These fractures impair the quality of living and add to morbidity and mortality. A Multitude of treatment options for the same. This systematic review focuses on evaluating outcomes between cemented and uncemented total hip replacement in the elderly population with neck of femur fractures. Material and methods: The search was conducted in databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, open grey, and Cochrane following PRISMA guidelines. The studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included, scrutinized for data analysis, and also quality appraisal of all the included studies was conducted to be included in this article. Results: A total of 7 studies were included (2 RCT, 5 retrospective studies) comprising 1171 THRs. Data analysis showed a higher HHS in cemented compared to uncemented(p < 0.001). The uncemented group had a significantly higher rate of revision, dislocation, and periprosthetic fracture compared to cemented group(p < 0.001). However, VAS score, loosening rates, and heterotopic ossification were similar in both statistically insignificant groups. Conclusion: Choosing between cemented and uncemented techniques had been a controversy with lesser data due to higher morbidity and mortality. This systematic review provides information regarding functional outcomes and complications in both groups. The cemented group had better outcomes and lesser complications which should be preferred in elderly patients as the conclusion of this study. However, a larger RCT with better follow-up is still required. Level of evidence: Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis.
Purpose: The neck of femur fractures in the elderly is a global concern. These fractures impair the quality of living and add to morbidity and mortality. A Multitude of treatment options for the same. This systematic review focuses on evaluating outcomes between cemented and uncemented total hip replacement in the elderly population with neck of femur fractures. Material and methods: The search was conducted in databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, open grey, and Cochrane following PRISMA guidelines. The studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included, scrutinized for data analysis, and also quality appraisal of all the included studies was conducted to be included in this article. Results: A total of 7 studies were included (2 RCT, 5 retrospective studies) comprising 1171 THRs. Data analysis showed a higher HHS in cemented compared to uncemented(p < 0.001). The uncemented group had a significantly higher rate of revision, dislocation, and periprosthetic fracture compared to cemented group(p < 0.001). However, VAS score, loosening rates, and heterotopic ossification were similar in both statistically insignificant groups. Conclusion: Choosing between cemented and uncemented techniques had been a controversy with lesser data due to higher morbidity and mortality. This systematic review provides information regarding functional outcomes and complications in both groups. The cemented group had better outcomes and lesser complications which should be preferred in elderly patients as the conclusion of this study. However, a larger RCT with better follow-up is still required. Level of evidence: Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis.
Authors: Iker Uriarte; Jesús Moreta; Iñigo Jimenez; María José Legarreta; José Luis Martínez de Los Mozos Journal: Injury Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 2.586