Can Selected Use of Cemented and Uncemented Femoral Components in a Broad Population Produce Comparable Results Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis?

Abstract

BackgroundRegistry data have demonstrated lower rates of revision and periprosthetic fracture in select cohorts with cemented femoral fixation at primary total hip arthroplasty. Whether this is true of all component designs is not known. We hypothesized that selected use of ream-and-broach triple-tapered uncemented stem designs may provide comparable results to cemented stems. MethodsFrom 2000 to 2018, 5,809 primary total hip arthroplasties were performed with either a cemented (1,304) or ream-and-broach triple-tapered uncemented stem (4,505). Implant choice was at surgeon discretion. The cemented group was older, more often women, and had slightly lower body mass index. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients ≥75 years of age. Statistical weighting accounted for baseline cohort differences. ResultsAt 10 years, there was a trend toward higher all-cause revision (hazards ratio (HR) 1.6, P = .053) and higher all-cause reoperation (HR 1.6, P = .02) in the cemented fixation cohort. The cemented fixation group had fewer intraoperative periprosthetic fractures (HR 0.21, P < .001) but no difference in postoperative fractures (HR 0.99, P = .96). The same was true in patients ≥75 years. In the ≥75-years subgroup, there was no difference in revision or reoperation at 10 years. ConclusionCompared to cemented stems, the use of ream-and-broach triple-tapered uncemented stems in select patients, including those ≥75 years, was associated with more intraoperative fractures but no difference in 10-year implant survivorship. These findings are different than some registry data and suggest that specific uncemented components, implanted in selected patients by experienced surgeons, can perform as well as cemented implants in a broad patient population.