Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 11, pp 3588–3595

Improved Survival of Uncemented versus Cemented Femoral Stems in Patients Aged < 70 Years in a Community Total Joint Registry

  • John Wechter
  • Thomas K. Comfort
  • Penny Tatman
  • Susan Mehle
  • Terence J. Gioe
Clinical Research



Aseptic loosening of the femoral stem remains a significant reason for revision in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although stem fixation methods have changed over time, there is relatively little evidence supporting cemented or uncemented stems as more durable constructs.


We examined whether there was a difference in survival to revision between cemented and uncemented THA stems (1) for any reason; (2) for aseptic loosening or loosening related to wear/osteolysis; (3) based on patient age groupings (as a proxy for patient activity level); and (4) based on procedural timeframe groupings between cemented and uncemented stems.


A total of 6498 primary cemented and uncemented THAs were registered in our community total joint replacement registry between 1991 and 2011. Analysis was performed to compare age, sex, procedural timeframe, and diagnosis for both groups. Our primary outcome was revision of the stem component for aseptic loosening or loosening secondary to wear/osteolysis. Analyses were done using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Pearson’s chi-square tests, Kaplan Meier methods, and Cox regression.


After adjusting for age, sex, primary diagnosis, and procedural timeframe as confounders, cemented femoral stem components were 1.63 times as likely as uncemented stems to be revised for any reason (p = 0.02) and 3.76 times as likely as uncemented stems to be revised for aseptic loosening or loosening related to wear/osteolysis (p < 0.001). When grouped by age, specifically in regard to revisions for aseptic loosening or loosening related to wear/osteolysis, uncemented stems had lower cumulative revision rates in patients aged < 70 years (p < 0.001) compared with cemented stems. There was a trend away from cemented fixation in our registry, which shifted from over 80% cemented stem use in 1996 to 3% in 2011.


We found that uncemented stems were associated with fewer revisions for aseptic loosening in patients < 70 years old, but when all reasons for revision were considered, neither group demonstrated superior survival. With a mean followup of 6.5 years, longer followup is needed to verify these results over time.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


  1. 1.
    Berend ME. Cemented femoral fixation: a historical footnote. Orthopedics. 2006;29:791–792.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berend ME, Smith A, Meding JB, Ritter MA, Lynch T, Davis K. Long-term outcome and risk factors of proximal femoral fracture in uncemented and cemented total hip arthroplasty in 2551 hips. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(Suppl 2):53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME, Morrey BF. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:171–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell AC, Bourne RB, Chess D, Nott L. Thigh pain after cementless hip arthroplasty. Annoyance or ill omen. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:63–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charnley J. The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972;54:61–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collis DK, Mohler CG. Comparison of clinical outcomes in total hip arthroplasty using rough and polished cemented stems with essentially the same geometry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:586–592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corten K, Bourne RB, Charron KD, Au K, Rorabeck CH. What works best, a cemented or cementless primary total hip arthroplasty? Minimum 17-year followup of a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:209–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Nies F, Fidler MW. The Harris-Galante cementless femoral component: poor results in 57 hips followed for 3 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:122–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emerson RH Jr, Head WC, Emerson CB, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL. A comparison of cemented and cementless titanium femoral components used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a radiographic and survivorship study. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:584–591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eskelinen A, Remes V, Helenius I, Pulkkinen P, Nevalainen J, Paavolainen P. Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis in younger patients in the Finnish arthroplasty register. 4,661 primary replacements followed for 0–22 years. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:28–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Francis CW, Marder VJ, Evarts CM. Lower risk of thromboembolic disease after total hip replacement with non-cemented than with cemented prostheses. Lancet. 1986;1:769–771.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garellick G, Karrholm J, Rogmark C, Herberts P. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2009. Available at: Accessed February 5, 2012.
  13. 13.
    Gioe TJ, Killeen KK, Mehle S, Grimm K. Implementation and application of a community total joint registry: a twelve-year history. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1399–1404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graves S. Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry. Hip and knee arthroplasty annual report 2011. Available at: . Accessed October 4, 2011.
  15. 15.
    Hailer NP, Garellick G, Kärrholm J. Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:34–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie SA, Vollset SE. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:337–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Stringer M, Frampton C. Revision following cemented and uncemented primary total hip replacement: a seven-year analysis from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:451–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim YH, Oh SW, Kim JS. Prevalence of fat embolism following bilateral simultaneous and unilateral total hip arthroplasty performed with or without cement: a prospective, randomized clinical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1372–1379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lane NE. Clinical practice. Osteoarthritis of the hip. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1413–1421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Learmonth ID, Grobler GP, Dall DM, Jandera V. Loss of bone stock with cementless hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:257–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mäkelä KT, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Paavolainen P, Remes V. Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in patients fifty-five years of age or older. An analysis of the Finnish arthroplasty registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2160–2170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ong A, Wong KL, Lai M, Garino JP, Steinberg ME. Early failure of precoated femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:786–792.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pentlow AK, Heal JS. Subsidence of collarless uncemented femoral stems in total hips replacements performed for trauma. Injury. 2012;43:882–885.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pierannunzil LM. Thigh pain after total hip replacement: a pathophysiological review and a comprehensive classification. Orthopedics. 2008;31:691–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pitto RP, Koessler M, Kuehle JW. Comparison of fixation of the femoral component without cement and fixation with use of a bone-vacuum cementing technique for the prevention of fat embolism during total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:831–843.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Powers-Freeling L. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 8th Annual Report 2011. Available at: Accessed February 10, 2012.
  28. 28.
    Shah N, Porter M. Evolution of cemented stems. Orthopedics. 2005;28(Suppl):819–825.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith E, Harris WH. Increasing prevalence of femoral lysis in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:407–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sochart DH, Porter ML. The long-term results of Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in young patients who have congenital dislocation, degenerative osteoarthrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1599–1617.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sporer SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. The effects of surface roughness and polymethylmethacrylate precoating on the radiographic and clinical results of the Iowa hip prosthesis. A study of patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:481–492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sylvain GM, Kassab S, Coutts R, Santore R. Early failure of a roughened surface, precoated femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:141–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wroblewski BM, Siney PD. Charnley low-friction arthroplasty of the hip. Long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;292:191–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Wechter
    • 1
  • Thomas K. Comfort
    • 2
  • Penny Tatman
    • 3
  • Susan Mehle
    • 3
  • Terence J. Gioe
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Minnesota Medical SchoolMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.St Croix Orthopaedics, PAStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.HealthEast Department of Research and EducationSt PaulUSA
  4. 4.Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care CenterMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations