Cemented versus uncemented stems for revision total hip replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDThe popularity of uncemented stems in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased in the last decade.AIMTo assess the outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems after mid-term follow up.METHODS This study was performed following both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement and the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Articles were chosen irrespective of country of origin or language utilized for the article full texts. This paper included studies that reviewed revision THA for both cemented or uncemented long stems.RESULTSThree eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis was conducted by using Review Manager version 5.3. We computed the risk ratio as a measure of the treatment effect, taking into account heterogeneity. We used random-effect models. There were no significant differences found for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-5.32; P = 0.76], aseptic loosening (RR = 2.15, 95%CI: 0.81-5.70; P = 0.13), dislocation rate (RR = 0.50; 95%CI: 0.10-2.47; P = 0.39), or infection rate (RR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.82-1.19; P = 0.89), between the uncemented and the cemented long stems for revision THA after mid-term follow-up.CONCLUSIONThis study has evaluated the mid-term outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems at first-time revision THA. In summary, there were no significant differences in the dislocation rate, aseptic loosening, intraoperative periprosthetic fracture and infection rate between the two cohorts.