SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Outcomes of cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: A systematic review with narrative synthesis.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Comparison of Uncemented and Hybrid Hip Arthroplasty: Protocol for a Brazilian Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare primary (implant survival and periprosthetic fracture rates, PPF) and secondary (patient reported outcome measures, PROMs) outcomes of cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis.
methodsFour databases (PubMed
resultsEight studies met criteria for review (n = 357,748). Risk of bias was high for two, moderate for three, and low for three studies. Quality of evidence was very low for both primary and secondary outcomes. Five studies met the criteria for the primary outcome (survival) (n = 257,756), two PPF rates (n = 29,581), and three PROMs (n = 382). Three of five studies reported hybrid survival as not significantly different to cemented, and two identified cemented as superior. The three PROMs studies reported no difference between cemented and hybrid THA. A lack of studies and comparative data made it unfeasible to determine PPF outcomes.
conclusionFew high-quality studies and methodological heterogeneity led to moderate to high bias and very low overall evidence certainty. Eligible studies indicated no difference in short to medium term PROMs or 10-year survival between the two fixations. Long-term studies indicated superior cemented survival outcomes. A substantial gap in long-term PROMs and PPF rates is noted.
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.