Literature DB >> 23873609

Improved survival of uncemented versus cemented femoral stems in patients aged < 70 years in a community total joint registry.

John Wechter1, Thomas K Comfort, Penny Tatman, Susan Mehle, Terence J Gioe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23873609      PMCID: PMC3792261          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3182-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  30 in total

Review 1.  Evolution of cemented stems.

Authors:  Nikhil Shah; Martyn Porter
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.390

2.  Implementation and application of a community total joint registry: a twelve-year history.

Authors:  Terence J Gioe; Kathleen K Killeen; Susan Mehle; Katherine Grimm
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Cemented femoral fixation: a historical footnote.

Authors:  Michael E Berend
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.390

4.  Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Kevin Ong; Edmund Lau; Fionna Mowat; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 5.  Clinical practice. Osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  Nancy E Lane
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-10-04       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Thigh pain after total hip replacement: a pathophysiological review and a comprehensive classification.

Authors:  Luca M C Pierannunzii
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.390

7.  Revision following cemented and uncemented primary total hip replacement: a seven-year analysis from the New Zealand Joint Registry.

Authors:  G J Hooper; A G Rothwell; M Stringer; C Frampton
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-04

8.  Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in patients fifty-five years of age or older. An analysis of the Finnish arthroplasty registry.

Authors:  Keijo T Mäkelä; Antti Eskelinen; Pekka Pulkkinen; Pekka Paavolainen; Ville Remes
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  What works best, a cemented or cementless primary total hip arthroplasty?: minimum 17-year followup of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Kristoff Corten; Robert B Bourne; Kory D Charron; Keegan Au; Cecil H Rorabeck
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  Nils P Hailer; Göran Garellick; Johan Kärrholm
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Total hip arthroplasty for the management of hip fracture: A review of the literature.

Authors:  Jacob B Stirton; Jacob C Maier; Sumon Nandi
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-02-26

2.  CORR Insights®: High early failure rate after cementless hip replacement in the octogenarian.

Authors:  Terence J Gioe
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Has the Use of Fixation Techniques in THA Changed in This Decade? The Uncemented Paradox Revisited.

Authors:  Kristine Ifigenia Bunyoz; Erik Malchau; Henrik Malchau; Anders Troelsen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Increased risk of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture with uncemented stems.

Authors:  Martin Lindberg-Larsen; Christoffer C Jørgensen; Søren Solgaard; Anne G Kjersgaard; Henrik Kehlet
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  Bilateral Neck of Femur Fractures in a Bilateral Below-Knee Amputee: A Unique Case.

Authors:  Hannah R Lancer; Peter Smitham; Pinak Ray
Journal:  Case Rep Orthop       Date:  2016-01-06

6.  Comparison of treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fracture with different arthroplasty methods.

Authors:  Hasan Göçer; Sina Coşkun; Nedim Karaismailoğlu
Journal:  Niger Med J       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr

7.  Risk factors for intraoperative calcar fracture in cementless total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Simo S A Miettinen; Tatu J Mäkinen; Inari Kostensalo; Keijo Mäkelä; Heini Huhtala; Jukka S Kettunen; Ville Remes
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Fixation, sex, and age: highest risk of revision for uncemented stems in elderly women - data from 66,995 primary total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  Håvard Dale; Sjur Børsheim; Torbjørn Berge Kristensen; Anne Marie Fenstad; Jan-Erik Gjertsen; Geir Hallan; Stein Atle Lie; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 3.717

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.