Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: The choice of optimal implant fixation in total hip replacement (THR)--fixation with or without cement--has been the subject of much debate.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature comparing cemented and uncemented fixation in THR.

Results: No advantage was found for either procedure when failure was defined as either: (A) revision of either or both components, or (B) revision of a specific component. No difference was seen between estimates from registry and single-center studies, or between randomized and non-randomized studies. Subgroup analysis of type A studies showed superior survival with cemented fixation in studies including patients of all ages as compared to those that only studied patients 55 years of age or younger. Among type B studies, cemented titanium stems and threaded cups were associated with poor survival. An association was found between difference in survival and year of publication, with uncemented fixation showing relative superiority over time.

Interpretation: While the recent literature suggests that the performance of uncemented implants is improving, cemented fixation continues to outperform uncemented fixation in large subsets of study populations. Our findings summarize the best available evidence qualitatively and quantitatively and provide important information for future research.