ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Study of Functional Outcomes Between Cemented and Uncemented Total Hip Replacement at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Odisha, India.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.