Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40621249›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Comparative Study of Functional Outcomes Between Cemented and Uncemented Total Hip Replacement at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Odisha, India.

Sourav Mishra, Spandan Mishra, Nihar R Mishra, Sunit Pani, Chaitanya Khandelwal, Abhinav Sharma, Shivam Chawla

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sourav MishraOrthopaedics and Trauma, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Spandan MishraOrthopaedics and Trauma, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Nihar R MishraOrthopaedics and Trauma, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Sunit PaniOrthopaedics and Trauma, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Chaitanya KhandelwalOrthopaedics and Trauma, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Abhinav SharmaOrthopaedics and Trauma, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Shivam ChawlaOrthopaedics and Trauma, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background This study aims to assess the clinical and functional outcomes of cemented and uncemented total hip replacement (THR) by comparing the two surgical techniques in Odisha. Also, it aims to assess complications of THR/total hip arthroplasty (THA) by comparing two surgical techniques as well. Materials and methods This prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Orthopedics and Trauma, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, from March 2022 to September 2023. A total of 60 patients undergoing primary THR were enrolled and categorized into cemented and uncemented groups. Clinical evaluations were conducted using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at six weeks, three months, six months, and 12 months. Results The mean age of patients in the cemented THR group was 55.53 years, while the uncemented group had a mean age of 52.60 years. Pain levels, assessed using the VAS, were similar between groups at the six-week follow-up. However, at three months (p ≤ 0.0001) and six months (p = 0.0001), the cemented group reported significantly lower VAS scores, indicating more effective early pain control and likely improved initial osseointegration. Functional outcomes, measured by the HHS and the WOMAC, also favored the cemented group. Statistically significant differences were observed at three months (p = 0.001), six months (p ≤ 0.05), and at the one-year follow-up (p ≤ 0.05). There was one case of excessive blood loss during surgery in the uncemented group and one case of foot drop in the cemented group. Sixty-six patients were included, but six left the study - four did not meet the inclusion criteria, and two declined to provide consent. Conclusion Cemented implants are a more cost-effective option, offering improved short-term outcomes, and also allow for full weight-bearing activities with minimal discomfort. Early movement and mobilization are seen in cemented implants, while uncemented implants offer better durability and avoid cement-related complications, with stronger biological integration. Although the decision between cemented and uncemented THR depends on various patient-specific factors, including age, activity level, bone quality, and overall health, each method has its own risks and benefits that should be considered after detailed deliberation.

Indexed as

cemented vs uncementedeastern odishaharris hip scoretotal hip replacement (thr)vas for painwomac

Identifiers

PMID40621249
PMCPMC12228952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.