Recently, several high impact randomised controlled
trials have been published suggesting no greater benefit from orthopaedic
surgery over conservative treatment, or limited surgical intervention.
These studies can have profound effects on clinical practice, leading
to the abandonment of previously widely-used operations. How do surgeons who believe these operations are beneficial over
conservative treatment rationalise these findings, and justify their
use with hospital administrators and health care funders who require
evidence for the value and efficacy of surgical treatment? Cite this article:
Using meta-analysis we compared the survival and clinical outcomes of cemented and uncemented techniques in primary total knee replacement. We reviewed randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing cemented and uncemented fixation. Our primary outcome was survival of the implant free of aseptic loosening. Our secondary outcome was joint function as measured by the Knee Society score. We identified 15 studies that met our final eligibility criteria. The combined odds ratio for failure of the implant due to aseptic loosening for the uncemented group was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 6.5) (p <
0.0001). Subgroup analysis of data only from randomised controlled trials showed no differences between the groups for odds of aseptic loosening (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 0.55 to 6.40, p = 0.314). The weighted mean difference for the Knee Society score was 0.005 (95% CI −0.26 to 0.26) (p = 0.972). There was improved survival of the cemented compared to uncemented implants, with no statistically significant difference in the mean Knee Society score between groups for all pooled data.
Our aim was to determine the effect of delay to surgery on the time to discharge, in-hospital death, the presence of major and minor medical complications and the incidence of pressure sores in patients with a fracture of the hip. All patients admitted to Vancouver General Hospital with this injury between 1998 and 2001 inclusive were identified from our trauma registry. A review of the case notes was performed to determine the delay in time from admission to surgery, age, gender, type of fracture and medical comorbidities. A time-to-event analysis was performed for length of stay. Additionally, a Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the effect of delay to surgery on the length of stay while controlling for other pertinent confounding factors. Using logistical regression we determined the effect of delay to surgery on in-hospital death, medical complications and the presence of pressure sores, while controlling for confounding factors. Delay to surgery (p = 0.0255), comorbidity (p <
0.0001), age (p <
0.0001) and type of fracture (p = 0.0004) were all significant in the Cox proportional hazards model for increased time to discharge. Delay to surgery was not a significant predictor of in-hospital mortality. However, a delay of more than 24 hours was a significant predictor of a minor medical complication (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.22), while a delay of more than 48 hours was associated with an increased risk of a major medical complication (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.34), a minor medical complication (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.72) and of pressure sores (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.40). Patients with a fracture of the hip should have surgery early to lessen the time to acute-care hospital discharge and to minimise the risk of complications.
