ArticleActa orthopaedica2019
Uncemented or cemented revision stems? Analysis of 2,296 first-time hip revision arthroplasties performed due to aseptic loosening, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Zoledronic acid and denosumab for periprosthetic bone mineral density loss after joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Archives of osteoporosis · 2023Pooled it
- One- vs. Two-Stage Exchange for Chronic Hip Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Framework Based on Patient Treatment Burden and Institutional Capability.JBJS reviews · 2026Review
- Use of Limited Femorotomy as an Alternative to Extensive Trochanteric Osteotomy for Cementless Femoral Prosthesis Revision.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Comparative outcomes of uncemented and cemented stem revision in managing periprosthetic femoral fractures: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024Article
- Cemented vs cementless stems for revision arthroplasties due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Does size matter? Outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty with long or primary stems: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Article
- CementedWorld journal of orthopedics · 2023Article
- Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection in cemented total hip arthroplasty: an increased risk for failure?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Review
- Similar revision rate after cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 1,879 revision hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2023Article
- A significant change towards cemented fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years in the Netherlands: results of an observational cohort study in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register in 28,516 primary hip replacements and 1285 revision procedures.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2023Observational
- [Strategies for stem revision : Surgery planning, implant removal and reimplantation].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Femoral neck fracture patients with ischaemic stroke choose hemiarthroplasty or constrained liner total hip arthroplasty? A retrospective comparative study of 199 cases.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Cementless primary or revision stem in revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic stem loosening with Paprosky type I/II femoral defect?Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Article
- Outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty using a vascularised anterior femoral window.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022Article
- Implant survival of cemented arthroplasty following failed fixation of proximal femoral fractures in patients aged 30-60 years: a retrospective study with a median follow-up of 10 years.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- How long do revised and multiply revised hip replacements last? A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry.The Lancet. Rheumatology · 2022Article
- Minimum ten-year results in revision total hip arthroplasty using titanium fully porous long stem.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Reconstruction of Proximal Metaphyseal Femoral Defects Using Trabecular Metal Augments in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Observational
- Effect of Physiological Saline Solution Contamination on Selected Mechanical Properties of Seasoned Acrylic Bone Cements of Medium and High Viscosity.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - Uncemented stems are increasingly used in revision hip arthroplasty, but only a few studies have analyzed the outcomes of uncemented and cemented revision stems in large cohorts of patients. We compared the results of uncemented and cemented revision stems. Patients and methods - 1,668 uncemented and 1,328 cemented revision stems used in first-time revisions due to aseptic loosening between 1999 and 2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to investigate unadjusted implant survival with re-revision for any reason as the primary outcome. Hazard ratios (HR) for the risk of re-revision were calculated using a Cox regression model adjusted for sex, age, head size, concomitant cup revision, surgical approach at primary and at index revision surgery, and indication for primary total hip arthroplasty. Results - Unadjusted 10-year survival was 85% (95% CI 83-87) for uncemented and 88% (CI 86-90) for cemented revision stems. The adjusted HR for re-revision of uncemented revision stems during the first year after surgery was 1.3 (CI 1.0-1.6), from the second year the HR was 1.1 (CI 0.8-1.4). Uncemented stems were most often re-revised early due to infection and dislocation, whereas cemented stems were mostly re-revised later due to aseptic loosening. Interpretation - Both uncemented and cemented revision stems had satisfactory long-term survival but they differed in their modes of failure. Our conclusions are limited by the fact that femoral bone defect size could not be investigated within the setting of the current study.
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.