Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 9, pp 2779–2789 | Cite as

High Early Failure Rate After Cementless Hip Replacement in the Octogenarian

  • Esa JämsenEmail author
  • Antti Eskelinen
  • Mikko Peltola
  • Keijo Mäkelä
Clinical Research



Use of cementless hip replacements is increasing in many countries, but the best method for fixation for octogenarian patients remains unknown.


We studied how fixation method (cemented, cementless, hybrid) affects the survival of primary hip replacements and mortality in patients 80 years or older. Specifically, we asked if fixation method affects (1) the risk of revision; (2) the reasons for revision; and (3) the mortality after contemporary primary hip replacement in octogenarian patients.


A total of 4777 primary total hip replacements were performed in 4509 octogenarian patients with primary osteoarthritis in Finland between 1998 and 2009 and were registered in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Comorbidity data were collected from a nationwide quality register. Survival of hip replacements, using any revision as the end point, and mortality were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis and Cox regression analysis. The average followup was 4 years (range, 1–13 years).


Cementless hip replacements were associated with a higher rate of early (within 1 year) revision compared with cemented hip replacements (hazard ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.7–5.1), particularly in women. The difference was not explained by comorbidity or provider-related factors. Periprosthetic fracture was the leading mode of failure of cementless hip replacements. After 1 year, there were no differences in the survival rates although 10-year survival was slightly lower for cementless than cemented and hybrid hip replacements (93.9% [95% CI, 91.1%–96.7%] versus 97.4% [95% CI, 96.9%–98.0%] and 98.1% [95% CI, 96.9%–99.4%], respectively). Fixation method was not associated with mortality.


Cementless fixation was associated with an increased risk of revision and did not provide any benefit in terms of lower mortality in octogenarian patients.

Level of Evidence

Level II, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Periprosthetic Fracture Hospital Discharge Register Early Revision Cement Fixation Cementless Fixation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Abdulkarim A, Ellanti P, Motterlini N, Fahey T, O’Byrne JM. Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013;5:e8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aro HT, Alm JJ, Moritz N, Mäkinen TJ, Lankinen P. Low BMD affects initial stability and delays stem osseointegration in cementless total hip arthroplasty in women: a 2-year RSA study of 39 patients. Acta Orthop. 2012;83:107–114.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip and knee arthroplasty. Annual report 2012. Available at: Accessed July 30, 2013.
  4. 4.
    Bozic KJ, Durbhakula S, Berry DJ, Naessens JM, Rappaport K, Cisternas M, Saleh KJ, Rubash HE. Differences in patient and procedure characteristics and hospital resource use in primary and revision total joint arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(7 suppl 3):17–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clement ND, Biant LC, Breusch SJ. Total hip arthroplasty: to cement or not to cement the acetabular socket? A critical review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:411–427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davidson D, Pike J, Garbuz D, Duncan CP, Masri BA. Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2000–2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fernandez-Fernandez R, García-Elias E, Gil-Garay E. Peroperative fractures in uncemented total hip arthroplasty: results with a single design of stem implant. Int Orthop. 2008;32:307–313.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flamme CH, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ. Evaluation of the learning curves associated with uncemented primary total hip arthroplasty depending on the experience of the surgeon. Hip Int. 2006;16:191–197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Havelin LI, Fenstad AM, Salomonsson R, Mehnert F, Furnes O, Overgaard S, Pedersen AB, Herberts P, Kärrholm J, Garellick G. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association: a unique collaboration between 3 national hip arthroplasty registries with 280,201 THRs. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:393–401.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jameson SS, Baker PN, Mason J, Rymaszewska M, Gregg PJ, Deehan DJ, Reed MR. Independent predictors of failure up to 7.5 years after 35 386 single-brand cementless total hip replacements: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. Bone Joint J. 2013;95:747–757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jämsen E, Peltola M, Eskelinen A, Lehto MU. Comorbid diseases as predictors of survival of primary total hip and knee replacements: a nationwide register-based study of 96 754 operations on patients with primary osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1975–1982.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jämsen E, Puolakka T, Eskelinen A, Jäntti P, Kalliovalkama J, Nieminen J, Valvanne J. Predictors of mortality following primary hip and knee replacement in the aged: a single-center analysis of 1,998 primary hip and knee replacements for primary osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop. 2013;84:44–53.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keisu KS, Orozco F, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, McGuigan FX. Primary cementless total hip arthroplasty in octogenarians: two to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:359–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kennedy JW, Johnston L, Cochrane L, Boscainos PJ. Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in the octogenarian population. Surgeon. 2013;11:199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    McMinn DJ, Snell KI, Daniel J, Treacy RB, Pynsent PB, Riley RD. Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study. BMJ. 2012;344:e3319.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Institute for Health and Welfare. PERFECT – PERFormance, Effectiveness and Cost of Treatment episodes. Available at: Accessed October 3, 2013.
  20. 20.
    National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 9th annual report 2012. Available at: Accessed July 30, 2013.
  21. 21.
    Ogino D, Kawaji H, Konttinen L, Lehto M, Rantanen P, Malmivaara A, Konttinen YT, Salo J. Total hip replacement in patients eighty years of age and older. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1884–1890.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parvizi J, Pour AE, Keshavarzi NR, D’Apuzzo M, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty in octogenarians: a case-control study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2612–2618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peltola M, Juntunen M, Häkkinen U, Rosenqvist G, Seppälä TT, Sund R. A methodological approach for register-based evaluation of cost and outcomes in health care. Ann Med. 2011;43(suppl 1):S4–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peltola M, Malmivaara A, Paavola M. Hip prosthesis introduction and early revision risk: a nationwide population-based study covering 39,125 operations. Acta Orthop. 2013;84:25–31.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pennington M, Grieve R, Sekhon JS, Gregg P, Black N, van der Meulen JH. Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f1026.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pieringer H, Labek G, Auersperg V, Bohler N. Cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients older than 80 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:641–645.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Puolakka TJ, Pajamäki KJ, Halonen PJ, Pulkkinen PO, Paavolainen P, Nevalainen JK. The Finnish Arthroplasty Register: report of the hip register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:433–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ranstam J, Kärrholm J, Pulkkinen P, Mäkelä K, Espehaug B, Pedersen AB, Mehnert F, Furnes O; NARA study group. Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data: II. Guidelines. Acta Orthop. 2011;82:258–267.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rhyu KH, Lee SM, Chun YS, Kim KI, Cho YJ, Yoo MC. Does osteoporosis increase early subsidence of cementless double-tapered femoral stem in hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1305–1309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sheth NP, Brown NM, Moric M, Berger RA, Della Valle CJ. Operative treatment of early peri-prosthetic femur fractures following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:286–291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stroh DA, Zywiel MG, Johnson AJ, Mont MA. Excellent survivorship with the use of proximally coated tapered cementless stems for total hip arthroplasty in octogenarians. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2011;2:100–104.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual report 2011. Available at: Accessed July 30, 2013.
  33. 33.
    The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Report June 2010. Available at: Accessed July 30, 2013.
  34. 34.
    Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Johnsen SP, Søballe K. Inferior outcome after intraoperative femoral fracture in total hip arthroplasty: outcome in 519 patients from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:327–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Toossi N, Adeli B, Timperley AJ, Haddad FS, Maltenfort M, Parvizi J. Acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty: is there evidence that cementless fixation is better? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:168–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Troelsen A, Malchau E, Sillesen N, Malchau H. A review of current fixation use and registry outcomes in total hip arthroplasty: the uncemented paradox. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2052–2059.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    White PF, White LM, Monk T, Jakobsson J, Raeder J, Mulroy MF, Bertini L, Torri G, Solca M, Pittoni G, Bettelli G. Perioperative care for the older outpatient undergoing ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 2012;114:1190–1215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wurtz LD, Feinberg JR, Capello WN, Meldrum R, Kay PJ. Elective primary total hip arthroplasty in octogenarians. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58:M468–M471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esa Jämsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antti Eskelinen
    • 1
  • Mikko Peltola
    • 2
  • Keijo Mäkelä
    • 3
  1. 1.Coxa, Hospital for Joint ReplacementTampereFinland
  2. 2.Centre for Health and Social EconomicsNational Institute for Health and WelfareHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedics and TraumatologyTurku University HospitalTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations