Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019:5:35.
doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2019032. Epub 2019 Oct 1.

To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and re-evaluation

Frank Van Praet  1 , Michiel Mulier  2
Affiliations

To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and re-evaluation

Frank Van Praet et al. SICOT J. 2019.

Abstract

Introduction: Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip has evolved to a very safe and cost-effective intervention with revision rates below 5% after 10 years. To this day, however, controversy remains on whether or not to cement the acetabular cup.

Methods: A comprehensive PubMed search of the English literature for studies published between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Studies comparing the clinical (revision rate, functionality), radiological (wear) or economic (cost) differences between cemented (cemented stem with cemented cup) and hybrid (cemented stem with uncemented cup) prostheses for primary osteoarthritis of the hip were identified as eligible.

Results: A total of 1032 studies were identified whereof twelve were included for qualitative synthesis. All studies concerning the risk of revision were based on registry data, covering a total of 365,693 cups. Cemented prostheses had a similar or lower risk of revision compared to hybrid prostheses in every study, but performed slightly worse on functionality and quality of life. While cemented prostheses were the cheapest option, hybrids were the most cost-effective.

Discussion: The widespread preference for cementless fixation of the acetabulum cannot be explained by a superior survival of cementless or hybrid models. Irrespective of age, cemented fixation of the acetabulum remains the gold standard to which other techniques should be compared.

Keywords: Cemented versus hybrid; Cost; Functionality; Revision rate; Total hip arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA Flow Diagram for selection and inclusion of relevant literature.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Types of prostheses used for primary THA in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. National Joint Registry (NJR). Types of primary hip replacements undertaken [Internet]. 2018. Available on: http://www.njrreports.org.uk/.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Morshed S, Bozic KJ, Ries MD, Malchau H, Colford JMJ (2007) Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a meta-analysis. Acta Orthop 78(3), 315–326. - PubMed
    1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 370(9597), 1508–1519. - PubMed
    1. Charnley J (1972) The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Br 54(1), 61–76. - PubMed
    1. Kandala N-B, Connock M, Pulikottil-Jacob R, et al. (2015) Setting benchmark revision rates for total hip replacement: analysis of registry evidence. BMJ 350, h756. - PubMed
    1. Dobbs HS (1980) Survivorship of total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 62-B(2), 168–173. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources