Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37909705›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2023

Bisphosphonates' use and risk of aseptic loosening following total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Vasileios F Pegios, Eustathios Kenanidis, Stavros Tsotsolis, Michael Potoupnis, Eleftherios Tsiridis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. [Research progress in Cup-cage reconstruction for patients with chronic pelvic discontinuity after total hip arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vasileios F PegiosAcademic Orthopaedic Department, Aristotle University Medical School, General Hospital Papageorgiou, Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-0444-4640
Eustathios KenanidisAcademic Orthopaedic Department, Aristotle University Medical School, General Hospital Papageorgiou, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Stavros TsotsolisCentre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-7648-3190
Michael PotoupnisAcademic Orthopaedic Department, Aristotle University Medical School, General Hospital Papageorgiou, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Eleftherios TsiridisAcademic Orthopaedic Department, Aristotle University Medical School, General Hospital Papageorgiou, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The main indication of bisphosphonates (BPs) is osteoporosis treatment. However, there is growing interest in the peri- and postoperative use of BPs to mitigate total hip arthroplasty (THA) aseptic loosening (AL) risk. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the implant survival and the AL rate in patients with elective THA receiving BPs compared to those that do not receive BPs. Secondary outcomes included the comparison of revision rate, postoperative complications, and patients' functional scores. Methods: This systematic review was conducted under the PRISMA 2020 guidelines with a pre-registered PROSPERO protocol. Three engines and grey literature were searched up until May 2022. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies assessing BP and control therapy impact on THA survival were included. Results: Twelve studies embraced the inclusion criteria. A total of 99 678 patients and 99 696 THAs were included; 10 025 patients received BPs (BP group), and 89 129 made up the control group. The overall revision and AL rates were lower in the BP group (2.17% and 1.85%) than in the control group (4.06% and 3.2%). Periprosthetic fracture (PPF) cases were higher in the BP group (0.24%) than in the control group (0.04%); however, the majority of PPF cases were derived from a single study. Further complication risk was similar between groups. Most studies reported comparable functional scores between groups. Conclusion: BP treatment after elective THA seems to reduce the overall revision and AL risk. Other complications' risk and functional scores were similar between groups. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate the results due to the multifactorial AL pathogenesis.

Indexed as

aseptic looseningbisphosphonaterevisionsurvivalsystematic reviewTHAtotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID37909705
PMCPMC10646521
OpenAlexW4388128946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.