ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2017
Total hip replacement: A meta-analysis to evaluate survival of cemented, cementless and hybrid implants.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- What influences UK-practising consultant hip surgeons' decision-making about implant fixation? An interview study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Comparison of Uncemented and Hybrid Hip Arthroplasty: Protocol for a Brazilian Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- May the 4th be with you: mixed-methods best-evidence synthesis on 4th-generation alumina-zirconia ceramic bearings in total hip arthroplasty.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Effect of longer femoral head on leg length, offset, and range of motion in total hip arthroplasty: a simulation study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes between total hip replacement and total knee replacement.World journal of orthopedics · 2023Article
- Unexpected Repercussions of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Total Hip Arthroplasty with Cemented Hip Prosthesis versus Cementless Implants.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Paradox of the Decline of Cemented Femoral Stems.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- The Proximal Femoral Bone Geometry in Plain Radiographs.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2020Article
- Article
- An international comparison of THA patients, implants, techniques, and survivorship in Sweden, Australia, and the United States.Acta orthopaedica · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine whether cemented, cementless, or hybrid implant was superior to the other in terms of survival rate.
methodsSystematic searches across MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane that compared cemented, cementless and hybrid total hip replacement (THR) were performed. Two independent reviewers evaluated the risk ratios of revision due to any cause, aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation rate of each implants with a pre-determined form. The risk ratios were pooled separately for clinical trials, cohorts and registers before pooled altogether using fixed-effect model. Meta-regressions were performed to identify the source of heterogeneity. Funnel plots were analyzed.
resultsTwenty-seven studies comprising 5 clinical trials, 9 cohorts, and 13 registers fulfilled the research criteria and analyzed. Compared to cementless THR, cemented THR have pooled RR of 0.47 (95%CI: 0.45-0.48), 0.9 (0.84-0.95), 1.29 (1.06-1.57) and 0.69 (0.6-0.79) for revision due to any reason, revision due to aseptic loosening, revision due to infection, and dislocation respectively. Compared to hybrid THR, the pooled RRs of cemented THR were 0.82 (0.76-0.89), 2.65 (1.14-6.17), 0.98 (0.7-1.38), and 0.67 (0.57-0.79) respectively. Compared to hybrid THR, cementless THR had RRs of 0.7 (0.65-0.75), 0.85 (0.49-1.5), 1.47 (0.93-2.34) and 1.13 (0.98-1.3).
conclusionDespite the limitations in this study, there was some tendency that cemented fixation was still superior than other types of fixation in terms of implant survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.