ArticleSICOT-J2019
To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and re-evaluation.
Article in SICOT-J, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: A systematic review with narrative synthesis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Cumulative revision rates in total hip arthroplasty depending on acetabular cup fixation: an analysis from the German arthroplasty registry.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Cemented versus cementless cup fixation in total hip arthroplasty for proximal femoral fractures: analysis of revision and mortality rates from the German arthroplasty registry (EPRD).Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Acetabular screws placement in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a narrative review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Review
- Impact of bone quality on surgical decision-making in total hip arthroplasty: a qualitative analysis in the UK.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Does the placement of acetabular cups differ between right and left sides for a right-handed surgeon operating through a direct lateral approach? A comparative study.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Article
- Mid-term clinical outcomes of the uncemented Robert Mathys pressfit cup.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Early Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of an Additive-Manufactured Acetabular Component.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
- The Measurement of the Oxidative Index of Polyethylene Obtained during Revision Hip Arthroplasty and Assessment of Its Variability Depending on the Degree of Osteolysis, Implantation Time, as Well as the Size and Material of the Utilized Head.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasty with limited open reduction and internal fixation vs open reduction and internal fixation for geriatric acetabular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2023Article
- Increasing age does not influence hip-specific functional outcome or health-related quality of life following total hip arthroplasty : a five-year prospective cohort study.Bone & joint open · 2022Article
- Acetabular revision using trabecular titanium (Delta TT) revision cups: A retrospective case series.SICOT-J · 2022Article
- Combined acetabular and femoral neck fractures with intrapelvic femoral head dislocation: Successful staged management of a rare injury in two cases.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2022Article
- Analysis of the Risk of Wear on Cemented and Uncemented Polyethylene Liners According to Different Variables in Hip Arthroplasty.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Primary Complex Total Hip Arthroplasty in Neglected Anterior Hip Dislocation With Comminuted Pertrochanteric Femur Fracture.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- Total hip replacement in patient with residual poliomyelitis with neglected femoral neck fracture.BMJ case reports · 2021Article
- To cement or not to cement, that is the question in elderly!Joint diseases and related surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTotal Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip has evolved to a very safe and cost-effective intervention with revision rates below 5% after 10 years. To this day, however, controversy remains on whether or not to cement the acetabular cup.
methodsA comprehensive PubMed search of the English literature for studies published between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Studies comparing the clinical (revision rate, functionality), radiological (wear) or economic (cost) differences between cemented (cemented stem with cemented cup) and hybrid (cemented stem with uncemented cup) prostheses for primary osteoarthritis of the hip were identified as eligible.
resultsA total of 1032 studies were identified whereof twelve were included for qualitative synthesis. All studies concerning the risk of revision were based on registry data, covering a total of 365,693 cups. Cemented prostheses had a similar or lower risk of revision compared to hybrid prostheses in every study, but performed slightly worse on functionality and quality of life. While cemented prostheses were the cheapest option, hybrids were the most cost-effective. DISCUSSION: The widespread preference for cementless fixation of the acetabulum cannot be explained by a superior survival of cementless or hybrid models. Irrespective of age, cemented fixation of the acetabulum remains the gold standard to which other techniques should be compared.
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.