Furlong Hydroxyapatite-Coated Hip Prosthesis vs the Charnley Cemented Hip Prosthesis

Chandran, Prakash; Azzabi, Mohamed; Miles, Jeremy N. V.; Andrews, Mark; Bradley, John G.

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.10.009

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the ten papers [13,17,19,25,26,52,80-83] that considered uncemented vs. cemented fixation, seven reported a statistically significant association with revision risk. Five papers reported a statistically significant increased risk for uncemented prostheses and two found a significant increased risk of revision for cemented prostheses .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

Prokopetz

Losina

Bliss³

et al. 2012

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

191

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNumerous papers have been published examining risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there have been no comprehensive systematic literature reviews that summarize the most recent findings across a broad range of potential predictors.MethodsWe performed a PubMed search for papers published between January, 2000 and November, 2010 that provided data on risk factors for revision of primary THA. We collected data on revision for any reason, as well as on revision for aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. For each risk factor that was examined in at least three papers, we summarize the number and direction of statistically significant associations reported.ResultsEighty-six papers were included in our review. Factors found to be associated with revision included younger age, greater comorbidity, a diagnosis of avascular necrosis (AVN) as compared to osteoarthritis (OA), low surgeon volume, and larger femoral head size. Male sex was associated with revision due to aseptic loosening and infection. Longer operating time was associated with revision due to infection. Smaller femoral head size was associated with revision due to dislocation.ConclusionsThis systematic review of literature published between 2000 and 2010 identified a range of demographic, clinical, surgical, implant, and provider variables associated with the risk of revision following primary THA. These findings can inform discussions between surgeons and patients relating to the risks and benefits of undergoing total hip arthroplasty.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

Prokopetz

Losina

Bliss³

et al. 2012

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

191

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12,14–28 Seven studies were excluded, five were reporting previously published data, 14,16,18–20 one was not a proper RCT and one was RCT comparing cemented with another cemented implant. 15,17 Nine RCTs met all of our inclusion criteria. 12,21–28 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abdulkarim

Ellanti

Mondaini³

et al. 2013

Orthop Rev

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The optimal method of fixation for primary total hip replacements (THR), particularly fixation with or without the use of cement is still controversial. In a systematic review and metaanalysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing cemented versus uncemented THRS available in the published literature, we found that there is no significant difference between cemented and uncemented THRs in terms of implant survival as measured by the revision rate. Better short-term clinical outcome, particularly an improved pain score can be obtained with cemented fixation. However, the results are unclear for the long-term clinical and functional outcome between the two groups. No difference was evident in the mortality and the post operative complication rate. On the other hand, the radiographic findings were variable and do not seem to correlate with clinical findings as differences in the surgical technique and prosthesis design might be associated with the incidence of osteolysis. We concluded in our review that cemented THR is similar if not superior to uncemented THR, and provides better short term clinical outcomes. Further research, improved methodology and longer follow up are necessary to better define specific subgroups of patients in whom the relative benefits of cemented and uncemented implant fixation can be clearly demonstrated.

show abstract

“…However, they could not conclude whether the type of fixation was associated with the risk of PJI [25,27], because they were not powered sufficiently, and their primary endpoint was not the occurrence of PJI, but short-term medical comorbidity (intra-operative death and cardiac arrest) or long-term survivorship [32][33][34][35]. We performed meta-analysis as a alternative method for evaluating infection rate between cemented and cementless THAs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative Deep Infection After Cemented Versus Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

Yoon

Lee

et al. 2015

The Journal of Arthroplasty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Furlong Hydroxyapatite-Coated Hip Prosthesis vs the Charnley Cemented Hip Prosthesis

Cited by 24 publications

References 37 publications

Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Postoperative Deep Infection After Cemented Versus Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About