ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
Comparing modern uncemented, hybrid and cemented implant combinations in older patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty, a New Zealand Joint Registry study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 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
- Patient-reported outcome measure comparison of two cemented primary total hip arthroplasty implant combinations for osteoarthritis: a regional New Zealand study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Observational
- 10-year survival comparison of two cemented implants in primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a New Zealand regional study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Survival outcomes of hybrid total hip replacement following failed proximal femoral nail antirotation: a retrospective study with a median 10-year follow-up.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Management of Venous Thromboembolism After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2025Article
- Treatment of femoral neck fractures using actis stem: complication rate in 188 uncemented hemiarthroplasties.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Are we getting better at cementing femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty? A 5-year institutional trend.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple joint registries have reported better implant survival for patients aged > 75 years undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) with cemented implant combinations when compared to hybrid or uncemented implant combinations. However, there is considerable variation within these broad implant categories, and it has therefore been suggested that specific implant combinations should be compared. We analysed the most common contemporary uncemented (Corail/Pinnacle), hybrid (Exeter V40/Trident) and cemented (Exeter V40/Exeter X3) implant combinations in the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) for patients aged > 75 years.
methodsAll THAs performed using the selected implants in the NZJR for patients aged > 75 years between 1999 and 2018 were included. Demographic data, implant type, and outcome data including implant survival, reason for revision, and post-operative Oxford Hip Scores were obtained from the NZJR, and detailed survival analyses were performed. Primary outcome was revision for any reason. Reason for revision, including femoral or acetabular failure, and time to revision were recorded.
results5427 THAs were included. There were 1105 implantations in the uncemented implant combination group, 3040 in the hybrid implant combination group and 1282 in the cemented implant combination group. Patient reported outcomes were comparable across all groups. Revision rates were comparable between the cemented implant combination (0.31 revisions/100 component years) and the hybrid implant combination (0.40 revisions/100 component years) but were statistically significantly higher in the uncemented implant combination (0.80/100 component years). Femoral-sided revisions were significantly greater in the uncemented implant combination group.
conclusionThe cemented implant and hybrid implant combinations provide equivalent survival and functional outcomes in patients aged over 75 years. Caution is advised if considering use of the uncemented implant combination in this age group, predominantly due to a higher risk of femoral-sided revisions. The authors recommend comparison of individual implants rather than broad categories of implants.
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.