Kanu Okike1, Priscilla H Chan2, Heather A Prentice2, Elizabeth W Paxton2, Robert A Burri3. 1. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente, Honolulu. 2. Surgical Outcomes and Analysis Department, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California. 3. The Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente, San Rafael, California.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Consensus guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that cemented fixation is more effective than uncemented fixation in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures. Given that these recommendations are based on research performed outside the United States, it is uncertain whether these findings also reflect the US experience. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes associated with cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 12 491 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent hemiarthroplasty treatment of a hip fracture between 2009 and 2017 at 1 of the 36 hospitals owned by Kaiser Permanente, a large US health maintenance organization. Patients were followed up until membership termination, death, or the study end date of December 31, 2017. EXPOSURES: Hemiarthroplasty (prosthetic replacement of the femoral head) fixation via bony growth into a porous-coated implant (uncemented) or with cement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, defined as any reoperation performed after the index procedure involving exchange of the existing implant for reasons other than infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, postdischarge, and overall), 90-day medical complications, 90-day emergency department visits, and 90-day unplanned readmissions. RESULTS: Among 12 491 patients in the study cohort who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture (median age, 83 years; 8660 women [69.3%]), 6042 (48.4%) had undergone uncemented fixation and 6449 (51.6%) had undergone cemented fixation, and the median length of follow-up was 3.8 years. In the multivariable regression analysis controlling for confounders, uncemented fixation was associated with a significantly higher risk of aseptic revision (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation, 3.0% vs 1.3%; absolute difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.43-2.19]; P < .001). Of the 6 prespecified secondary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortality (1.7% for uncemented fixation vs 2.0% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.21]; P = .61) and overall mortality (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation: 20.0% for uncemented fixation vs 22.8% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system, uncemented fixation, compared with cemented fixation, was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of aseptic revision. These findings suggest that US surgeons should consider cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the absence of contraindications.
IMPORTANCE: Consensus guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that cemented fixation is more effective than uncemented fixation in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures. Given that these recommendations are based on research performed outside the United States, it is uncertain whether these findings also reflect the US experience. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes associated with cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 12 491 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent hemiarthroplasty treatment of a hip fracture between 2009 and 2017 at 1 of the 36 hospitals owned by Kaiser Permanente, a large US health maintenance organization. Patients were followed up until membership termination, death, or the study end date of December 31, 2017. EXPOSURES: Hemiarthroplasty (prosthetic replacement of the femoral head) fixation via bony growth into a porous-coated implant (uncemented) or with cement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, defined as any reoperation performed after the index procedure involving exchange of the existing implant for reasons other than infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, postdischarge, and overall), 90-day medical complications, 90-day emergency department visits, and 90-day unplanned readmissions. RESULTS: Among 12 491 patients in the study cohort who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture (median age, 83 years; 8660 women [69.3%]), 6042 (48.4%) had undergone uncemented fixation and 6449 (51.6%) had undergone cemented fixation, and the median length of follow-up was 3.8 years. In the multivariable regression analysis controlling for confounders, uncemented fixation was associated with a significantly higher risk of aseptic revision (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation, 3.0% vs 1.3%; absolute difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.43-2.19]; P < .001). Of the 6 prespecified secondary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortality (1.7% for uncemented fixation vs 2.0% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.21]; P = .61) and overall mortality (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation: 20.0% for uncemented fixation vs 22.8% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system, uncemented fixation, compared with cemented fixation, was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of aseptic revision. These findings suggest that US surgeons should consider cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the absence of contraindications.
Authors: Elizabeth W Paxton; Heather A Prentice; Maria C S Inacio; Mark T Dillon; Richard S Page; Jeppe V Rasmussen; Björn Salomonsson; Richard de Steiger; Ronald A Navarro Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Mohit Bhandari; P J Devereaux; Marc F Swiontkowski; Paul Tornetta; William Obremskey; Kenneth J Koval; Sean Nork; Sheila Sprague; Emil H Schemitsch; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Rachid Rassir; Maarten Schuiling; Inger N Sierevelt; Casper W P van der Hoeven; Peter A Nolte Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Taranjit Tung; Trevor C Gascoyne; Elly Trepman; Carole H Stipelman; Sarah Tran; Eric R Bohm; Colin D Burnell; David R Hedden; Thomas R Turgeon Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 2.840