Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25138469›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2015

Systematic review of literature of cemented femoral components: what is the durability at minimum 20 years followup?

Nicholas A Bedard, John J Callaghan, Michael D Stefl, Steve S Liu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Femoral Stem Cementation in Hip Arthroplasty: The Know-How of a "Lost" Art.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Particle disease really does exist.Acta orthopaedica · 2018
    Article
  17. Excellent mid-term results of a new polished tapered modular cemented stem: a study of 113 hip replacements with minimum 5-year follow-up.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nicholas A BedardUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
John J Callaghan
Michael D Stefl
Steve S Liu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCemented femoral total hip arthroplasty may be one of the most successful surgical interventions of all time. However, although results are very encouraging over the early to mid-term followup, relatively few studies have analyzed the durability of these implants beyond 20 years followup. To evaluate the performance of contemporary implants, it is important to understand how previous implants perform at 20 or more years of followup; one way to do this is to aggregate the available data in the form of a systematic review. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How durable is cemented femoral fixation in the long term (minimum 20-year followup) with respect to aseptic loosening? (2) Is the durability of cemented femoral fixation dependent on age of the patient? (3) Are the long-term results of the cemented femoral fixation dependent on any identifiable characteristics of the prosthesis such as surface finish?

methodsA systematic review was performed to identify long-term studies of cemented femoral components. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria to 1228 articles found with a search in PubMed and EMBASE, 17 studies with a minimum of 20-year followup on cemented femoral components were thoroughly analyzed in an attempt to answer the questions of this review. The quality of the studies reviewed was assessed with the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) instrument. All studies were case series and cohort sizes ranged from 110 to 2000 hips for patients older than 50 years of age and 41 to 93 hips for patients younger than 50 years at the time of surgery.

resultsAmong the six case series performed in patients older than 50 years of age, survivorship for aseptic loosening of the femoral component ranged from 86% to 98% at 20 years followup. There were no obvious differences for younger patients when analyzing the five studies in patients younger than age 50 years in which survivorship free from aseptic loosening for these studies ranged from 77% at 20 years in one study and 68% to 94% at 25 years in the other studies. Although data pooling could not be performed because of heterogeneity of the studies included here, it appeared that stems with a rougher surface finish did not perform as well as polished stems; survivorship of stems with rougher surface finishes varied between 86% and 87%, whereas those with smoother finishes ranged between 93.5% and 98% at 20 years.

conclusionsExcellent long-term fixation in both older and younger patients can be obtained with cemented, polished femoral stems. These results provide material for comparison with procedures performed with newer cementing techniques and newer designs, both cemented and cementless, at this extended duration of followup.

Indexed as

Hip ProsthesisProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureAdultCementationCoated Materials, BiocompatibleFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurface PropertiesTreatment OutcomeCoated Materials, Biocompatible

Identifiers

PMID25138469
PMCPMC4294928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.