Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip in patients with a femoral neck fracture: a comparison of two modern stem design implants

  • Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We wished to compare the outcome of two types of cemented and uncemented modern stem design implants after hemiarthroplasty, with both an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel rating of 10A.

Methods

This retrospective study compares data obtained from two centres, with a total study population of 655 (n = 393 cemented, n = 262 uncemented). Patients were matched at baseline for gender, age, surgery side, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index and pre-operative haemoglobin level. Outcome measurements were prosthesis-related complications, pre- and post-operative, with reoperation rate and mortality and other complications after 1 year, surgery time, blood loss and immobility at discharge.

Results

There were no significant differences in mortality after 1 year, total other complications, immobility at the time of discharge and total prosthesis-related complications between both groups. Significantly more periprosthetic fractures and post-operative infections were seen in the uncemented group with significantly more reoperations compared to the cemented group. Significant differences were seen in cardiovascular complications, blood loss and surgery time in favour of the uncemented group.

Conclusions

In consequence of the significant higher prosthesis-related complications (e.g. infections, periprosthetic fractures and reoperations) in the uncemented group in this study, we recommend cemented hemiarthroplasty in patients with a femoral neck fracture.

Level of evidence

Level III, Case Controlled Study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ODEP: rates an orthopaedic implant product's compliance with the 10-year benchmarks set by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).  ODEP listings show all products submitted to ODEP by industry in relation to benchmarks set by NICE. ODEP 10 A rating: A minimum cohort of 500 hips at the start of the study (consisting of data from beyond the developing centre and from more than 3 centres/surgeons) with a minimum of 10-year follow-up and an actual revision rate of less than 5%. All deaths, loss to follow-up, failures and indications for revisions recorded. A maximum of 20% loss to follow-up is permitted.

References

  1. Cheng SY, Levy AR et al (2011) Geographic trends in incidence of hip fractures: a comprehensive literature review. Osteoporos Int 22(10):2575–2586

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Holt G, Smith R et al (2008) Early mortality after surgical fixation of hip fractures in the elderly: an analysis of data from the scottish hip fracture audit. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(10):1357–1363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Foss NB, Kehlet H (2005) Mortality analysis in hip fracture patients: implications for design of future outcome trials. Br J Anaesth 94(1):24–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Burgers PTPW, Hoogendoorn MV et al (2016) Total medical costs of treating femoral neck fracture patients with hemi- or total hip arthroplasty: a cost analysis of a multicenter prospective study, on behalf of the HEALTH trial investigators. Osteoporos Int 27:1999–2008

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kannan A, Kancherla R et al (2012) Arthroplasty options in femoral-neck fracture: answers from the national registries. Int Orthop 36(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nederlandse Vereniging van Heelkunde & Nederlandse Orthopaedische Vereniging; Richtlijn Proximale femurfracturen (2016) 68–81. https://www.cme-online.nl/sites/www.cme-online.nl/files/2016/08/richtlijn_proximale_femurfracturen.pdf

  7. NICE (2011) The management of hip fracture in adults. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg124

  8. ODEP Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel, U.K. http://www.odep.org.uk/product.aspx?pid=210

  9. Gaski GE, Scully SP (2011) In brief: classifications in brief: Vancouver classification of postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(5):1507–1510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Li T, Zhuang Q, Weng X et al (2013) Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 8(7):e68903

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Luo X, He S, Li Z, Huang D (2012) Systematic review of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in older patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:455–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ning GZ, Li YL, Wu Q et al (2014) Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: an updated meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:7–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Parker MJ, Gurusamy KS, Azegami S (2010) Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16(6):CD001706

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sonne-Holm S, Walter S, Jensen JS (1982) Moore hemi-arthroplasty with and without bone cement in femoral neck fractures. A clinical controlled trial. Acta Orthop Scand 53(6):953–956

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Emery RJ, Broughton NS et al (1991) Bipolar hemiarthroplasty for subcapital fracture of the femoral neck. A prospective randomised trial of cemented Thompson and uncemented Moore stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(2):322–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Figved W, Opland V et al (2009) Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(9):2426–2435

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Parker MI, Pryor G, Gurusamy K (2010) Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular hip fractures: a randomised controlled trial in 400 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(1):116–122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor F, Wright M, Zhu M (2012) Hemiarthroplasty of the hip with and without cement: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(7):577–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Deangelis JP, Ademi A, Staff I, Lewis CG (2012) Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized trial with early follow-up. J Orthop Trauma 26(3):135–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Branfoot T, Faraj AA, Porter P (2000) Cemented versus uncemented Thompson’s prosthesis: a randomised prospective functional outcome study. Injury 31:280–281

    Google Scholar 

  21. Harper WM, Greg PJ (1992) The treatment of intracapsular proximal femoral fractures: a randomized prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg 74(Suppl iii):282

    Google Scholar 

  22. Santini S, Rebeccato A et al (2005) Hip fractures in elderly patients treated with bipolar hemiarthroplasty: comparison between cemented and cementless implants. J Orthopaed Traumatol 6:80–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dorr LD, Glousman R et al (1986) Treatment of femoral neck fractures with total hip replacement versus cemented and noncemented hemiarthroplasty. J Arthroplast 1(1):21–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Moroni A, Pegreffi F et al (2009) Result in osteoporotic femoral neck fractures treated with cemented versus uncemented hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91-B(SUPP I):167

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cumming D, Parker M (2012) Randomised trial of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94-B(SUPP III):63

    Google Scholar 

  26. Veldman HD, Heyligers IC et al (2017) Cemented versus cementless hemiarthroplasty for a displaced fracture of the femoral neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current generation hip stems. Bone Joint J 99-B(4):421–431

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Langslet E, Frihagen F et al (2014) Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: 5-year followup of a randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1291–1299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Talsnes O, Hjelmstedt F et al (2013) No difference in mortality between cemented and uncemented hemiprosthesis for elderly patients with cervical hip fracture. A prospective randomized study on 334 patients over 75 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:805–809

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Goltzman D (2002) Discoveries, drugs and skeletal disorders. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1:784–796

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hordon LD, Peacock M (1990) Osteomalacia and osteoporosis in femoral neck fracture. Bone Miner 11:247–259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang J, Zhu C et al (2013) A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement use in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. PLoS One. 12(8):e82745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pitto RP, Koessler M, Kuehle JW (1999) 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 81(6):831–843

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    M. R. M. Frenken

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands

    M. G. M. Schotanus, E. H. van Haaren & R. Hendrickx

Authors
  1. M. R. M. Frenken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. G. M. Schotanus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. H. van Haaren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Hendrickx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. G. M. Schotanus.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

MRM Frenken, MGM Schotanus, EH van Haaren and R Hendrickx declare that they have no commercial associations (e.g. consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frenken, M.R.M., Schotanus, M.G.M., van Haaren, E.H. et al. Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip in patients with a femoral neck fracture: a comparison of two modern stem design implants. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28, 1305–1312 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2202-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2202-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation