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

• Published in: Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research 2019-11, Vol.14 (1), p.371-371, Article 371
• Main Authors: Liu, Tiejian, Hua, Xiaoxiao, Yu, Weiguang, Lin, Jinluan, Zhao, Mingdong, Liu, Jun, Zeng, Xianshang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Arthroplasty; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - statistics & numerical data; Bone Cements; Cemented; Comparative analysis; Complication; Female; Femoral neck fracture; Femoral Neck Fractures - surgery; Follow-Up Studies; Fractures (Injuries); Hip Prosthesis; Hip replacement arthroplasty; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Orthopedic surgery; Prostheses and implants; Retrospective Studies; Total hip arthroplasty; Treatment Outcome; Uncemented
• ISSN: 1749-799X; 1749-799X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1415-3

This retrospective analysis compared the long-term outcomes for patients with a femoral neck fracture (AO/OTA type 31B) treated with a primary unilateral total hip arthroplasty with uncemented or cemented femoral components (UTHA or CTHA, respectively). We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the South China Hip Arthroplasty Database. We identified 422 patients with femoral neck fracture (AO/OTA type 31B) who were previously treated with primary unilateral UTHA or CTHA between 2007 and 2015, with follow-up until 2019. Follow-up occurred 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively and yearly thereafter. The primary outcome was the Harris hip score (HHS). The secondary outcome was the orthopaedic complication rate. In total, 324 patients (UTHA n = 160, mean age 68.61 ± 7.49 years; CTHA n = 164, mean age 68.75 ± 7.04 years) were evaluated for study eligibility. The median follow-up was 73.3 months (range, 11.6-89.2 months). At the final follow-up, HHS was 74.09 ± 6.23 vs 79.01 ± 10.21 (UTHA vs CTHA, p = 0.012). Significant differences were detected in the incidence of prosthetic revision, loosening, and periprosthetic fracture between the UTHA and CTHA groups (7.5% for UTHA vs 1.8% for CTHA, p = 0.015; 17.5% for UTHA vs 8.5% for CTHA, p = 0.016; 11.9% for UTHA vs 4.9% for CTHA, p = 0.021, respectively). In this setting, CTHA demonstrated superiority to UTHA by improving functional outcomes and decreasing complication rates.