To the Editor:
We read with interest the article, “Systematic Review of Cemented and Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty Outcomes for Femoral Neck Fractures” by Ahn et al. [1], which concluded there was no significant difference between cemented and uncemented techniques for reported outcome measurements of femoral neck fractures. Respecting the highly influential status of systematic review in the hierarchy of evidence, we wish to bring attention to three important issues.
First, seven trials, two randomized controlled trials [RCT] [15, 16], and five retrospective trials [6, 8, 14, 18, 19] could have been retrieved and included in the meta-analysis. In addition, one RCT [2] was retrieved but not included. The authors arbitrarily searched the literature after 1980 while missing two classic trials [15, 19] before 1980. As a result, there is a definite bias of selection that may lead to an inappropriate conclusion. Unfortunately, no detailed reasons were provided to justify their search strategy.
Second, we would like to offer some observations regarding their data extraction (see Supplementary website material) and pooled analysis. (1) The data referring to Eiskjaer et al. [4] was in fact extracted from another article from Eiskjaer and Østgård [5]. A similar instance is seen with Lausten et al. [12], which should be replaced by the earlier article by Lausten and Vedel [11]. (2) It appears the authors neglected the cemented group with Hastings prosthesis in the article by Eiskjaer and Østgård [5]. The mortality of this group was not included. Also, neither the revision rate nor the followup was extracted. (3) Gebhard et al. [8] reported six revisions in each group by 1 year. However, these data were mistakenly included in the column, “Complication” of their Supplementary Website Material. (4) The authors failed to explain why 15 cemented cases and 61 uncemented cases with thigh pain were not included in the subgroup of Lo et al. [13]. (5) In the report by Sonne-Holm et al. [17], 11 deaths that occurred in each group by 6 weeks were not listed in their Supplementary Website Material. Also, Sonne-Holm et al. noted only 30% of the patients with cemented prostheses (12 patients) reported pain compared with 60% of the patients with uncemented prostheses (21 patients) after 6 months. The result contradicts those of 23 cases versus 13 cases extracted by Ahn et al. [1]. (6) There were actually three revisions reported by Dorr et al. [3] instead of four revisions. (7) The correct order of Fig. 2 in the meta-analysis [1] should be “(A) intermediate mortality,” “(B) long-term mortality,” “(C) perioperative mortality,” “(D) complications,” “(E) pain,” and “(F) revision.” (8) The mortality data within 1 month by Foster et al. [7] should have been included in the subanalysis for perioperative mortality, not that for intermediate followup.
Considering all the above points, we did a second meta-analysis with updated data. The results showed the risk ratios (RRs) of pain (Fig. 1) and use of assistive devices (Fig. 2) were lower in the cemented cohort than in the uncemented cohort, which supported previous results [10]. Similar to the original meta-analysis, no difference was found in the RR of outcomes for mortality (Table 1), complications (RR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–1.05; p = 0.13; fixed-effects model), and revision (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.30–1.26; p = 0.18; random-effects model). For mortality, interestingly, the trend of favoring the uncemented group was inverted to that of favoring the cemented group as the followup extended (Table 1). The change in trend probably is attributable to more perioperative complications, higher stability, and better postoperative mobility associated with the cementing technique [10]. More evidence is required to confirm the superiority of cemented hemiarthroplasty in long-term survival. Based on the pooled evidence, we believe cemented hemiarthroplasty confers less pain, better mobility, and possibly lower long-term mortality compared with uncemented hemiarthroplasty. However, given the low methodologic quality and great heterogeneity of studies, all conclusions should be applied with caution.
References
Ahn J, Man LX, Park S, Sodl JF, Esterhai JL. Systematic review of cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty outcomes for femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2513–2518.
Branfoot T, Faraj AA, Porter P. Cemented versus uncemented Thompson’s prosthesis: a randomised prospective functional outcome study. Injury. 2000;31:280–281.
Dorr LD, Glousman R, Hoy AL, Vanis R, Chandler R. Treatment of femoral neck fractures with total hip replacement versus cemented and noncemented hemiarthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1986;1:21–28.
Eiskjaer S, Gelineck J, Søballe K. Fractures of the femoral neck treated with cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Orthopedics. 1989;12:1545–1550.
Eiskjaer S, Østgård SE. Risk factors influencing mortality after bipolar hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of fracture of the femoral neck. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;270:295–300.
Faraj AA, Branfoot T. Cemented versus uncemented Thompson’s prostheses: a functional outcome study. Injury. 1999;30:671–675.
Foster AP, Thompson NW, Wong J, Charlwood AP. Periprosthetic femoral fractures: a comparison between cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasties. Injury. 2005;36:424–429.
Gebhard JS, Amstutz HC, Zinar DM, Dorey FJ. A comparison of total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty for treatment of acute fracture of the femoral neck. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;282:123–131.
Gingras MB, Clarke J, Evarts CM. Prosthetic replacement in femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;152:147–157.
Khan RJ, MacDowell A, Crossman P, Keene GS. Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip: a systematic review. Injury. 2002;33:13–17.
Lausten GS, Vedel P. Cementing v. not cementing the Monk endoprosthesis. Injury. 1982;13:484–488.
Lausten GS, Vedel P, Nielsen PM. Fractures of the femoral neck treated with a bipolar endoprosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;218:63–67.
Lo WH, Chen WM, Huang CK, Chen TH, Chiu FY, Chen CM. Bateman bipolar hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures: uncemented versus cemented. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;302:75–82.
Muirhead-Allwood W, Hutton P, Glasgow MMS. A comparative study of cemented and uncemented Thompson prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1983;65:218–219.
Sadr B, Arden GP. A comparison of the stability of proplast-coated and cemented Thompson prostheses in the treatment of subcapital femoral fractures. Injury. 1977;8:234–237.
Santini S, Rebeccato A, Bolgan I, Turi G. Hip fractures in elderly patients treated with bipolar hemiarthroplasty: comparison between cemented and cementless implants. J Orthop Traumatol. 2005;6:80–87.
Sonne-Holm S, Walter S, Jensen JS. Moore hemi-arthroplasty with and without bone cement in femoral neck fractures: a clinical controlled trial. Acta Orthop Scand. 1982;53:953–956.
Suman RK. Prosthetic replacement of the femoral head for fractures of the neck of the femur: a comparative study. Injury. 1980;11:309–316.
Wrighton JD, Woodyard JE. Prosthetic replacement for subcapital fractures of the femur: a comparative survey. Injury. 1971;2:287–293.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
(Re: Ahn J, Man LX, Park S, Sodl JF, Esterhai JL. Systematic review of cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty outcomes for femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Jul 24. [Epub ahead of print])
(Editor’s note: A reply was requested from Ahn et al.; however, none was received.)
Electronic Supplementary Material
Rights and permissions
This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.
About this article
Cite this article
Cai, XZ., Chen, XZ. & Yan, SG. Letter to the Editor: Cemented Hemiarthroplasty Confers Less Pain and Better Mobility than Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467, 582–584 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0644-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0644-2