• Users Online: 46
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 23-28

Comparative study of functional outcome of cemented and uncemented total hip replacement


Department of Orthopaedics, SMS Medical College and Attached Hospitals, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Divyanshu Goyal
B-21, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur - 302 021, Rajasthan
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jotr.jotr_10_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: To compare functional outcome of cemented and uncemented total hip replacement (THR). Materials and Methods: In this hospital based, randomized, comparative type of observational study, 25 patients were included in each group. Each patient examined thoroughly and underwent radiological assessment. Follow-up done at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 2 years and pain score, Harris Hip Score (HHS), subjective complaints, and joint stability were recorded. Results: Mean age of the patient in cemented group was 60.64 years and in uncemented group was 59.72 years. Pain score was compared at each follow-up which came out significant at 6 weeks (P ≤ 0.05) and 3 months (P = 0.002) explaining better early bone integration with cemented THR. However, at 6 months difference in pain score between two groups was nonsignificant (P = 0.176). Difference in function score between cemented and uncemented group was significant at 6 weeks (P = 0.003) and 3 months (P ≤ 0.05) which later become nonsignificant at 6 months (P = 0.38). The difference of HHS between cemented and uncemented group was significant at 6 weeks (P ≤ 0.05) and 3 months (P = 0.011). This difference became nonsignificant at 6 months. HHS is further divided into four grading – poor (<70), fair (70–79), good (80–89), and excellent (90–100). Overall in our study, 88% of patients in cemented group showed excellent and good results and 84% in uncemented group showed excellent and good results. There was one case of excessive blood loss during surgery in uncemented group and one case of foot drop in cemented group. Conclusion: Cemented implants are cheaper than the uncemented implants. Better short-term clinical outcomes mainly improved pain and early pain-free full weight bearing was obtained from cemented fixation.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed241    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded51    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal