Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23705066›Full record

ArticleOrthopedic reviews2013

Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Ali Abdulkarim, Prasad Ellanti, Nicola Motterlini, Tom Fahey, John M O'Byrne

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05108155 (Age-based Cut-off Point as Methodological Approach in Search for Differences in Mortality and Revision for Fixation Type), which is not on this map. Cited by 56 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05108155 completednot on this map

Age-based Cut-off Point as Methodological Approach in Search for Differences in Mortality and Revision for Fixation Type: Cemented Versus Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorLeiden University Medical CenterRan2007 to 2019Enrolled43,789ConditionsHip OsteoarthritisArmsCemented THA, Unemented THA
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Balancing Safety and Efficacy: Uncemented Versus Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Elderly.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. CementedWorld journal of orthopedics · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. UNCEMENTEDActa clinica Croatica · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ali AbdulkarimDepartment of Orthopaedics, Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Finglas, Dublin; Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.
Prasad Ellanti
Nicola Motterlini
Tom Fahey
John M O'Byrne
Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimal method of fixation for primary total hip replacements (THR), particularly fixation with or without the use of cement is still controversial. In a systematic review and metaanalysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing cemented versus uncemented THRS available in the published literature, we found that there is no significant difference between cemented and uncemented THRs in terms of implant survival as measured by the revision rate. Better short-term clinical outcome, particularly an improved pain score can be obtained with cemented fixation. However, the results are unclear for the long-term clinical and functional outcome between the two groups. No difference was evident in the mortality and the post operative complication rate. On the other hand, the radiographic findings were variable and do not seem to correlate with clinical findings as differences in the surgical technique and prosthesis design might be associated with the incidence of osteolysis. We concluded in our review that cemented THR is similar if not superior to uncemented THR, and provides better short term clinical outcomes. Further research, improved methodology and longer follow up are necessary to better define specific subgroups of patients in whom the relative benefits of cemented and uncemented implant fixation can be clearly demonstrated.

Indexed as

cementedmeta analysis.total hip arthroplastyuncemented

Identifiers

PMID23705066
PMCPMC3662257
OpenAlexW2159437806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.