Cargando…

Historically, did Cemented Thompson perform better than uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? A meta-analysis of available evidence

Introduction: Thompson and Austin Moore prostheses have been commonly used in hemiarthroplasties for displaced femoral neck fractures. There has been considerable debate about which of these prostheses is preferred. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare historical data for clinical outcom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shehata, Mohamed S.A., Abdelal, Ahmed, Salahia, Sami, Ahmed, Hussien, Shawqi, Muhammad, Elsehili, Ahmed, Morsi, Mahmoud, Afifi, Ahmed M., Kader, Nardeen, Grubhofer, Florian, Sallam, Asser, Imam, Mohamed
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: EDP Sciences 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6753858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31538934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2019031
_version_ 1783452976210247680
author Shehata, Mohamed S.A.
Abdelal, Ahmed
Salahia, Sami
Ahmed, Hussien
Shawqi, Muhammad
Elsehili, Ahmed
Morsi, Mahmoud
Afifi, Ahmed M.
Kader, Nardeen
Grubhofer, Florian
Sallam, Asser
Imam, Mohamed
author_facet Shehata, Mohamed S.A.
Abdelal, Ahmed
Salahia, Sami
Ahmed, Hussien
Shawqi, Muhammad
Elsehili, Ahmed
Morsi, Mahmoud
Afifi, Ahmed M.
Kader, Nardeen
Grubhofer, Florian
Sallam, Asser
Imam, Mohamed
author_sort Shehata, Mohamed S.A.
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Thompson and Austin Moore prostheses have been commonly used in hemiarthroplasties for displaced femoral neck fractures. There has been considerable debate about which of these prostheses is preferred. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare historical data for clinical outcomes of cemented Thompson and uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty in displaced femoral neck fractures. Methods: We searched Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Ovid and Web of Science for relevant articles up to February 2019. The included outcomes measured were hip function, hip pain, implant-related complications, surgical complications, reoperation rate and hospital stay. The data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two compared groups in a meta-analysis model. Results: Ten studies (four RCTs and six observational studies) with a total of 4378 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled RR showed that the Thompson group was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative hip pain (RR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.54, 0.80]), lesser reoperation rate (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.24, 0.88]), lesser intraoperative fractures (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.09, 0.25]), but a longer operative time (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI [2.08, 22.00]) in comparison to the Austin Moore group. The effect estimate did not favour either group in terms of hip function, periprosthetic fractures, prosthetic dislocations, wound infection, mortality and hospital stay. Conclusion: Evidence shows that Thompson hemiarthroplasty is better than Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty in terms of hip pain, reoperation rate and intraoperative fractures. Whereas the postoperative hip function is equivalent, these results could be considered when assessing the outcomes in modern hips.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6753858
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher EDP Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67538582019-10-01 Historically, did Cemented Thompson perform better than uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? A meta-analysis of available evidence Shehata, Mohamed S.A. Abdelal, Ahmed Salahia, Sami Ahmed, Hussien Shawqi, Muhammad Elsehili, Ahmed Morsi, Mahmoud Afifi, Ahmed M. Kader, Nardeen Grubhofer, Florian Sallam, Asser Imam, Mohamed SICOT J Review Article Introduction: Thompson and Austin Moore prostheses have been commonly used in hemiarthroplasties for displaced femoral neck fractures. There has been considerable debate about which of these prostheses is preferred. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare historical data for clinical outcomes of cemented Thompson and uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty in displaced femoral neck fractures. Methods: We searched Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Ovid and Web of Science for relevant articles up to February 2019. The included outcomes measured were hip function, hip pain, implant-related complications, surgical complications, reoperation rate and hospital stay. The data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two compared groups in a meta-analysis model. Results: Ten studies (four RCTs and six observational studies) with a total of 4378 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled RR showed that the Thompson group was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative hip pain (RR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.54, 0.80]), lesser reoperation rate (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.24, 0.88]), lesser intraoperative fractures (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.09, 0.25]), but a longer operative time (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI [2.08, 22.00]) in comparison to the Austin Moore group. The effect estimate did not favour either group in terms of hip function, periprosthetic fractures, prosthetic dislocations, wound infection, mortality and hospital stay. Conclusion: Evidence shows that Thompson hemiarthroplasty is better than Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty in terms of hip pain, reoperation rate and intraoperative fractures. Whereas the postoperative hip function is equivalent, these results could be considered when assessing the outcomes in modern hips. EDP Sciences 2019-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6753858/ /pubmed/31538934 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2019031 Text en © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2019 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Shehata, Mohamed S.A.
Abdelal, Ahmed
Salahia, Sami
Ahmed, Hussien
Shawqi, Muhammad
Elsehili, Ahmed
Morsi, Mahmoud
Afifi, Ahmed M.
Kader, Nardeen
Grubhofer, Florian
Sallam, Asser
Imam, Mohamed
Historically, did Cemented Thompson perform better than uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? A meta-analysis of available evidence
title Historically, did Cemented Thompson perform better than uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? A meta-analysis of available evidence
title_full Historically, did Cemented Thompson perform better than uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? A meta-analysis of available evidence
title_fullStr Historically, did Cemented Thompson perform better than uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? A meta-analysis of available evidence
title_full_unstemmed Historically, did Cemented Thompson perform better than uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? A meta-analysis of available evidence
title_short Historically, did Cemented Thompson perform better than uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? A meta-analysis of available evidence
title_sort historically, did cemented thompson perform better than uncemented austin moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? a meta-analysis of available evidence
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6753858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31538934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2019031
work_keys_str_mv AT shehatamohamedsa historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT abdelalahmed historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT salahiasami historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT ahmedhussien historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT shawqimuhammad historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT elsehiliahmed historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT morsimahmoud historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT afifiahmedm historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT kadernardeen historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT grubhoferflorian historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT sallamasser historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence
AT imammohamed historicallydidcementedthompsonperformbetterthanuncementedaustinmoorehemiarthroplastyforfemoralneckfracturesametaanalysisofavailableevidence