ReviewCureus2024
A Systematic Review Comparing the Outcomes of Cemented Versus Uncemented Stems in Femoral Impaction Bone Grafting for Revision Hip Arthroplasty.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Short-term Outcomes of Impaction Bone Grafting Technique with a Collared Fully Hydroxyapatite-Coated Stem in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Series.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Femoral impaction bone grafting is a crucial technique in revision hip arthroplasty, addressing bone loss and ensuring implant stability. The choice between cemented and uncemented stems significantly influences the outcomes and long-term success of the procedure. This systematic review aims to compare the clinical outcomes of cemented versus uncemented stems in femoral impaction bone grafting. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE Complete, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies evaluating the outcomes of femoral impaction bone grafting with cemented or uncemented stems were included. The primary outcome measured was the rate of loosening of the femoral component, while secondary outcomes included the incidence of complications such as dislocation, infection, fractures, overall patient mortality, and cardiopulmonary diseases. The literature search yielded 78 articles, with 36 meeting the inclusion criteria. These included one randomized controlled trial, 16 cohort studies (10 retrospective and six prospective), and 15 case series. Most surgeries were revision procedures, with aseptic loosening being the most common indication. For the cemented technique, 1,588 hips were analyzed, with 8.00% experiencing aseptic loosening, 3.53% dislocation, 3.87% infection, 37.33% mortality, 7.57% fractures, and 1.13% cardiopulmonary complications. For the uncemented technique, 464 hips were analyzed, with 1.72% aseptic loosening, 4.74% dislocation, 1.5% infection, 38.47% mortality, 7.76% fractures, and 0.65% cardiopulmonary complications. This systematic review highlights that both cemented and uncemented techniques for femoral impaction bone grafting offer unique benefits and challenges, with the choice depending on patient-specific factors. The uncemented technique, with a lower risk of femoral component loosening, may be better suited for younger, active patients with good bone quality, despite a slightly higher risk of fractures and dislocations. In contrast, the cemented technique, offering immediate stability, is more appropriate for elderly patients with compromised bone quality but carries a higher risk of loosening and cardiopulmonary complications. The decision should be tailored to the patient's clinical profile, including age, bone quality, comorbidities, and the surgeon's expertise.
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.