Skip to main content
. 2012 Oct 17;2012(10):CD006193. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006193.pub2

Comparison 2. Cemented versus uncemented with and without HA.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Absolute rotation about transverse axis in degrees (60 months) 2   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Intention‐to‐treat analysis 2 210 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.15 [‐0.08, 0.39]
1.2 Available data analysis 2 179 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.19 [‐0.03, 0.41]
2 Absolute rotation about longitudinal axis in degrees (60 months) 2   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 Intention‐to‐treat analysis 2 210 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.33 [0.09, 0.58]
2.2 Available data analysis 2 179 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.25 [‐0.14, 0.64]
3 Absolute rotation about sagittal axis in degrees (60 months) 2   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
3.1 Intention‐to‐treat analysis 2 210 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.20 [0.04, 0.36]
3.2 Available data analysis 2 179 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.15 [0.01, 0.29]
4 Maximum total point motion in millimeters (12 months) 2   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
4.1 Intention‐to‐treat analysis 2 176 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.60 [0.38, 0.82]
4.2 Available data analysis 2 168 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.61 [0.37, 0.84]
5 Maximum total point motion in millimeters (24 months) 2   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
5.1 Intention‐to‐treat analysis 2 173 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.52 [0.31, 0.72]
5.2 Available data analysis 2 167 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.52 [0.31, 0.74]
6 Arthroplasty instability (arthroplasty instability was considered an event) 3   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
6.1 Intention‐to‐treat analysis (missing participants were categorized unstable) 3 238 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.78 [0.36, 1.68]
6.2 Intention‐to‐treat analysis (missing participants were categorized stable) 3 238 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.40 [0.22, 0.73]
6.3 Available data analysis (arthroplasty instability was considered an event) 3 216 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.47 [0.24, 0.92]