Abstract:To the Editor: We read with interest the article, ‘‘Systematic Review of Cemented and Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty Outcomes for Femoral Neck Fractures’’ by Ahn et al. [1], which concluded there was no significant difference between cemented and uncemented techniques for reported outcome measurements of femoral neck fractures. Respecting the highly influential status of systematic review in the hierarchy of evidence, we wish to bring attention to three important issues. First, seven trials, two randomized controlled trials [RCT] [15, 16], and five retrospective trials [6, 8, 14, 18, 19] could have been retrieved and included in the meta-analysis. In addition, one RCT [2] was retrieved but not included. The authors arbitrarily searched the literature after 1980 while missing two classic trials [15, 19] before 1980. As a result, there is a definite bias of selection that may lead to an inappropriate conclusion. Unfortunately, no detailed reasons were provided to justify their search strategy. Second, we would like to offer some observations regarding their data extraction (see Supplementary website material) and pooled analysis. (1) The data referring to Eiskjaer et al. [4] was in fact extracted from another article from Eiskjaer and Østgård [5]. A similar instance is seen with Lausten et al. [12], which should be replaced by the earlier article by Lausten and Vedel [11]. (2) It appears the authors neglected the cemented group with Hastings prosthesis in the article by Eiskjaer and Østgård [5]. The mortality of this group was not included. Also, neither the revision rate nor the followup was extracted. (3) Gebhard et al. [8] reported six revisions in each group by 1 year. However, these data were mistakenly included in the column, ‘‘Complication’’ of their Supplementary Website Material. (4) The authors failed to explain why 15 cemented cases and 61 uncemented cases with thigh pain were not included in the subgroup of Lo et al. [13]. (5) In the report by Sonne-Holm et al. [17], 11 deaths that occurred in each group by 6 weeks were not listed in their Supplementary Website Material. Also, Sonne-Holm et al. noted only 30% of the patients with cemented prostheses (12 patients) reported pain compared with 60% of the patients with uncemented prostheses (21 patients) after 6 months. The result contradicts those of 23 cases versus 13 cases extracted by Ahn et al. [1]. (6) There were actually three revisions reported by Dorr et al. [3] instead of four revisions. (7) The correct order of Fig. 2 in the metaanalysis [1] should be ‘‘(A) intermediate mortality,’’ ‘‘(B) long-term mortality,’’ ‘‘(C) perioperative mortality,’’ ‘‘(D) complications,’’ ‘‘(E) pain,’’ and ‘‘(F) revision.’’ (8) The mortality data within 1 month by Foster et al. [7] should (Re: Ahn J, Man LX, Park S, Sodl JF, Esterhai JL. Systematic review of cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty outcomes for femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Jul 24. [Epub ahead of print]) (Editor’s note: A reply was requested from Ahn et al.; however, none was received.)

Uncemented vs Cemented Hemiarthroplasty for Hip Fracture

Letter to the Editor: Cemented Hemiarthroplasty Confers Less Pain and Better Mobility Than Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty.

Association Between the Femoral Stem Design Type and the Risk of Aseptic Revision After Hemiarthroplasty

A comparison of cemented femoral fixation via anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 60,739 total hip arthroplasties

Effect of cemented vs uncemented on outcomes for hemiarthroplasty in the elderly: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

The Comparison between Cemented and Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty in Patients with Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Are there patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip who may benefit from an uncemented hemiarthroplasty?

Effect of Cemented Versus Uncemented Long-Stem Hip Arthroplasty in Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fracture in the Elderly

Hemiarthroplasty for neck of femur fractures: to cement or not? A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis

Evaluation of Causes and Clinical Effects of Revision Surgery after Artificial Hip Replacement

Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register

Cemented versus Cementless Femoral Fixation for Elective Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Analysis of Short-Term Complication and Readmission Rates

Cemented Vs Cementless Femoral Fixation for Total Hip Arthroplasty After Displaced Femoral Neck Fracture: A Nationwide Analysis of Short-Term Complications and Readmission Rates

Application of uncemented acetabular cup in revision arthroplasty with cemented acetabular prosthesis

Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for elderly patients with displaced fracture of the femoral neck A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

Long-term follow-up outcomes for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with uncemented versus cemented femoral components: a retrospective observational study with a 5-year minimum follow-up

Fixation of Femoral Component in Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Safety

The Effect of Surgical Approach and Femoral Prosthesis Type on Revision Rates Following Total Hip Arthroplasty

Postoperative 30-day complications after cemented/hybrid versus cementless total hip arthroplasty in osteoarthritis patients > 70 years

Shall We Not Pressurise It? Effects of Bone Cement Pressurisation on Mortality and Revision Following Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Neck of Femur Fracture Patients: A Comparative Cohort Study

Cemented versus uncemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in the elderly