Long-term survival after cemented versus uncemented total hip arthroplasty for treatment of acute femoral neck fracture: a retrospective study with a mean 10-year follow-up

Abstract

Objective

To compare the long-term survivorship and Harris hip scores (HHSs) between cemented total hip arthroplasty (CTHA) and uncemented total hip arthroplasty (UTHA) for treatment of acute femoral neck fractures (FNFs).

Methods

Data of 224 hips (CTHA, n = 112; UTHA, n = 112) that underwent primary surgery in our medical institution from 2005 to 2017 were retrospectively analysed. The primary endpoint was the risk of all-cause revision. The difference in the risk of all-cause revision between the two groups was assessed by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with a log-rank test and Cox regression analysis.

Results

The mean postoperative follow-up was 10 years (range, 3–13 years). The Kaplan–Meier estimated 10-year implant survival rate was significantly higher in the CTHA than UTHA group (98.1% vs. 96.2%, respectively). The adjusted Cox regression analysis demonstrated a significantly lower risk of revision in the CTHA than UTHA group. At the final follow-up, the mean HHS was significantly higher in the CTHA than UTHA group (85.10 vs. 79.11, respectively).

Conclusion

This retrospective analysis demonstrated that CTHA provided higher survival, lower revision risk, and higher functional outcome scores than UTHA. Further follow-up is necessary to verify whether these advantages of CTHA persist over time.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty cemented uncemented Harris hip score survival revision

Introduction

Femoral neck fractures (FNFs) are severe injuries that may be associated with long-term disability.^1,2 For displaced FNFs, cemented or uncemented total hip arthroplasty (CTHA or UTHA, respectively) is frequently used.³ Implant failure secondary to primary THA has become a concern and is eventually addressed using THA revision, contributing to a revision rate as high as 15% to 35%.^2,4 Nevertheless, there is a paucity of literature on the long-term survivorship and Harris hip scores (HHSs) following primary CTHA or UTHA in the Asian population.⁵

Although previous reports have described implant survival and HHSs after primary CTHA or UTHA, they have either focused on complication rates or primary diagnoses.^6,7 Additionally, the reported results of implant survival and HHSs vary widely; this variation is mainly attributable to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample sizes, and length of follow-up.^8,9 Data on long-term implant survival and HHSs are lacking. Furthermore, few reports have described implant survival, and most of these reports have been subject to a short duration of follow-up.¹⁰ Lazarinis et al.¹¹ reported a 10-year revision rate of approximately 7.5% after CTHA. Almost all recent studies have focused on the application of UTHA and have shown exceptional results, with 5-year survival rates approaching 90% to 100%.^6,12 However, these first-rate results have not been verified in other studies; e.g., Swarup et al.⁸ reported a 10-year survival rate of 87% after UTHA.

To date, there remains limited evidence for the superiority of CTHA over UTHA in terms of implant survival and the HHS. As the number of THA procedures continues to increase, an understanding these two indexes throughout the postoperative period will be especially valuable. We therefore performed this retrospective study to compare the long-term survivorship and HHSs of CTHA versus UTHA in the treatment of acute FNFs in the Asian population.

Materials and methods

Study population

This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and the Investigational Ethics Review Board waived the requirement for informed consent. Data of patients who underwent unilateral primary CTHA or UTHA for acute FNFs from January 2005 and August 2017 were collected from our tertiary academic medical centre. The manufacturer details of the stems and cups employed in the THA procedures are shown in Table 1. The main exclusion criteria were inadequate study-related data, secondary CTHA or UTHA, bed-ridden status prior to primary CTHA or UTHA, pathological fracture secondary to malignant disease, incapacity to follow instructions, osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, active hip infection, tumour, injury severity score of >10, multiple injuries (e.g., pelvic fractures, craniocerebral trauma), severe cognitive impairment, drug or alcohol abuse, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of IV or V.

Table 1.

Manufacturer details of stems and cups employed in THA.

Patients, n	Stem	Cup
CTHA
54	Exeter,¹	Exeter¹ Elite,⁴ IP/SP1,³
32	Spectron EF²	Contemporary,¹ Marathon,⁴
26	Lubinus SP2³	Exeter X3 Rimfit¹
UTHA
75	Corail⁴	Reflection uncemented²
39	Filler⁵	Trident,¹ Igloo⁵

¹Stryker (Kalamazoo, MI, USA), ²Smith & Nephew (London, UK), ³Waldemar LINK (Hamburg, Germany), ⁴DePuy Synthes (Warsaw, IN, USA), ⁵Biotechni (La Ciotat, France).

CTHA, cemented total hip arthroplasty; UTHA, uncemented total hip arthroplasty.

All surgical procedures were carried out at our medical centre by three high-volume orthopaedists (W.Y., C.Z., and J.Y.), all of whom were experienced with arthroplasties. The indication for surgery was an FNF (OTA/AO classification of 31-B1, 2, or 3). A consistent protocol of antibiotic therapy (1.0 g of cefazolin intravenously twice a day; Baoman Biotechnology, Shanghai, China) was used perioperatively for 3 days. Furthermore, an anticoagulant regimen (4000 aXa IU of enoxaparin sodium [Clexane] intravenously once a day; Aventis, Shanghai, China) was used for each patient without contraindications for 1 month, starting at admission. A similar rehabilitation programme was used for each patient. Early mobilisation was advocated, with weight bearing as tolerated. The follow-up data included the risk of all-cause revision and the HHS. Follow-up occurred 1 year, 2 years, and every 2 years after primary CTHA or UTHA. The primary endpoint was implant survival.

Definitions of variables

Implant survival was calculated from the initiation of primary CTHA or UTHA until the date of final follow-up or revision surgery, whichever occurred first. Signs of cemented or uncemented stem loosening were evaluated by two co-authors in accordance with previous reports,^13,14 and the cups were assessed using Charnley zones.¹⁵ Revision was defined as the removal or exchange of any component.⁷ Failure was defined as revision of the primary CTHA or UTHA for any reason.

Statistical analysis

The difference in the risk of revision between the groups was assessed by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with a log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for survival. The Kaplan–Meier method and Cox analysis were performed with adjustments for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density (BMD), and ASA score. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson’s χ² test or Fisher’s test, as appropriate. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). The level of significance was set at p = 0.05.

Results

Overall survivorship

Based on our criteria, 112 patients (112 hips) with complete data were identified from our medical centre and included in the survival analysis. All patients had a ≥7-year follow-up. The patients comprised 102 (45.1%) men and 124 (54.9%) women with a median age of 68.8 (range, 60–77) years. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up was 10.2 (range, 7–13) years. The median interval from FNF to THA was 8.4 (range, 1–15) days. No statistically significant differences in the baseline characteristics were found between the groups. The baseline data are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Patient demographics and outcomes

Variable	CTHA (n = 112)	UTHA (n = 114)	p-value
Sex, male/female	52/60	50/64	0.698^a
Age at surgery, years	68.75 ± 8.36	69.02 ± 8.22	0.171^b
BMI, kg/m²	25.62 ± 8.34	26.14 ± 7.53	0.106^b
BMD	−2.74 ± 0.65	−2.75 ± 0.43	0.212^b
Side, left/right	54/58	59/55	0.595^a
Comorbidities			0.757^c
Hypertension	37	40
Diabetes mellitus	34	28
Hypertension and diabetes mellitus	11	14
Pulmonary	8	10
Cerebrovascular accident	9	7
Cardiopathy	7	8
Anaemia	6	7
Mechanism of injury			0.537^c
Traffic-related injury	31	27
Injury by falling	60	64
Tamp injury	21	23
ASA Index			0.313^c
I	23	32
II	57	52
III	32	30
Fracture type, OTA/AO			0.518^c
31-B1	36	31
31-B2	57	63
31-B3	19	20
Surgical approach			0.696^c
Anterior	54	52
Anterolateral	58	62
Time to surgery, days	8.00 ± 7.32	8.00 ± 6.75	0.241^b
Head size, mm			0.962^c
28	32	35
30	34	27
32	28	34
36	20	18
Preoperative HHS	55.74 ± 10.32	56.16 ± 11.24	0.528^b
Follow-up time, years	10.33 ± 3.15	10.21 ± 3.01	0.312^b

Data are presented as n or mean ± standard deviation.

^aAnalysed using the chi-square test. ^bAnalysed using an independent-samples t-test. ^cAnalysed using the Mann–Whitney test.

CTHA, cemented total hip arthroplasty; UTHA, uncemented total hip arthroplasty; HHS, Harris hip score; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; BMD, bone mineral density.

The results of the survival analysis are shown in Figure 1. CTHA provided a significantly better 10-year survival rate (98.1%; 95% CI, 96.1–98.5) than UTHA (96.2%; 95% CI, 95.2–97.3) (p = 0.030). Cox regression demonstrated similar results; patients treated with UTHA had a 1.4-fold higher risk of revision after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, BMD, and ASA score.

Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier survival analysis comparing CTHA with UTHA using the risk of all-cause revision as the primary endpoint. The cumulative survival rate at 10 years after surgery was significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.030). *Hazard ratio was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, with adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, bone mineral density, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score as covariates and CTHA/UTHA surgery as the time-dependent factor. CTHA, cemented total hip arthroplasty; UTHA, uncemented total hip arthroplasty.

Functional outcomes

The mean HHS increased from 55.74 ± 10.32 before surgery to 85.10 ± 12.21 at the final follow-up in the CTHA group and from 56.16 ± 11.24 to 79.11 ± 13.19 in the UTHA group. Approximately 72% of the patients who were treated with CTHA or UTHA had a satisfactory HHS at the final follow-up. Table 3 presents the HHS at each follow-up after surgery. The mean HHSs in the CTHA and UTHA groups were 85.12 ± 8.22 and 84.73 ± 6.21 at 1 year after surgery, respectively, with no significant difference. From 2 years after surgery to the final follow-up, CTHA yielded higher HHSs than UTHA (all p < 0.05). Especially at the final follow-up, patients who had undergone CTHA had a significantly higher HHS than patients who had undergone UTHA (85.10 ± 12.21 vs. 78.11 ± 13.19, respectively; p = 0.000).

Table 3.

Long-term functional outcomes.

HHS, year(s) postoperatively	CTHA (n = 112)	UTHA (n = 114)	p-value
1	85.12 ± 8.22	84.73 ± 6.21	0.104
2	89.53 ± 8.42	86.37 ± 7.26	0.021*
4	86.15 ± 8.37	84.30 ± 8.25	0.014*
6	87.62 ± 7.35	85.16 ± 9.20	0.012*
8	85.57 ± 9.26	80.38 ± 7.67	0.010*
10	85.48 ± 11.03	79.61 ± 12.15	0.010*
At final follow-up	85.10 ± 12.21	78.11 ± 13.19	0.000*

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

*Statistically significant values.

CTHA, cemented total hip arthroplasty; UTHA, uncemented total hip arthroplasty; HHS, Harris hip score.

Discussion

This retrospective review provides evidence that survival is better, the risk of revision is lower, and the HHS is higher after CTHA than after UTHA. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to assess survivorship of patients who have undergone CTHA versus UTHA for treatment of acute FNFs.

A growing but still extremely limited body of literature assessing survivorship between CTHA and UTHA has shown that CTHA provides a survival advantage.¹⁶ In the current analysis, we observed a lower survival rate after UTHA, with 10-year survival approaching 96.2%. Nevertheless, a 10-year survival rate of 57% was reported in a previous study involving 10 patients treated with secondary UTHA.⁷ Another study showed a 10-year survival rate of 77% in 20 patients treated with UTHA.¹⁷ The low 10-year survival rate for UTHA was possibly triggered by poor patient survival data and a small sample size. Junnila et al.¹⁸ performed a brand-level comparison of CTHA based on the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database and showed that implant survival was higher than the acceptable limit for 10-year survival (95.8%). Laaksonen et al.¹⁹ evaluated 10,113 primary UTHAs and reported that the overall survivorship up to 8 years ranged from 94.4% to 96.25%. However, a recent study showed no significant difference in survival between CTHA and UTHA.¹⁰ This may be partially attributed to the low number of hips (n = 22) in the study.¹⁰ The 10-year survival rate after THA was recently reported in large-sample studies (>100 hips). Davis et al.²⁰ reported a 10-year survival rate of 95% in a series of 104 CTHA-treated hips. Additionally, a 10-year survival rate of 97% in a series of 112 CTHA-treated hips was reported by Norambuena et al.²¹ In two studies from Europe, the 10-year survival rate after CTHA was higher than that after UTHA.^22,23 The better hip stability after CTHA than after UTHA is reportedly due to the low stress transfer and good fusion of the cement–bone interface.^7,24 The between-component mechanical wear introduced by edge loading is lower in CTHA than in UTHA.²⁴ Along with our findings, the results reported by these studies seem to confirm that CTHA is the preferred alternative for managing an acute FNF.

The present study showed that CTHA had a lower revision risk than UTHA. The revision risk for CTHA reported in earlier studies tends to vary, ranging from 3.2% to 11.0%.^12,24,25 Despite the low revision risk for CTHA in the present study, when previous reports assessing the revision risk for CTHA are regarded as a reference, our revision risk is consistent with previously reported values.²⁵ Pedersen et al.,⁴ who used the Nordic Arthroplasty Registry Association database, found that UTHA rather than CTHA in patients younger than 55 years was associated with more short-term revisions because of dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, and infection. Several recent reports have shown a lower revision risk at the midterm follow-up after CTHA than after UTHA.^26,27 UTHA appears to be associated with an increased risk of revision following primary THA.²⁸

The present study has several limitations. First, our study was retrospective, and such a study design tends to lead to errors in evaluating patient characteristics and could be associated with limited power to draw robust conclusions. Second, selection bias was difficult to avoid because of the exclusion of a large number of undesirable cases. Third, the follow-up outcomes are likely to have been influenced by patient-level confounders and the experience of the orthopaedists. Nonetheless, our abidance by arthroplasty guidelines and performance of the procedures in a high-volume environment ensured that we optimised the treatment of patients. Despite the above-mentioned limitations, the error margin seems to be acceptable in the present setting.

In conclusion, the long-term results reported in this study support an increasing body of evidence that CTHA is associated with increased survival benefits, lower revision risk, and higher HHSs than is UTHA. Hence, when proceeding with UTHA in patients with an acute FNF, the patients should be informed of the increased potential for failure, revision, and poor HHS. Furthermore, when interpreting the differences in the survival benefit or revision risk between CTHA and UTHA, strategies to improve implant survival should be directed based on baseline characteristics such as age, sex, BMI, BMD, and ASA score.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by the Shanghai Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission (201640057).

ORCID iDs

Weiguang Yu

References

Zijlstra

De Hartog

Van Steenbergen

, et al. Effect of femoral head size and surgical approach on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. An analysis of 166,231 procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Acta Orthop 2017; 88: 395–401.

Parry

Hernandez

Berry

, et al. Risk factors for subsidence of modular fluted tapered stems used during revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip fractures. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 2967–2970.

Abdel

Von Roth

Harmsen

, et al. What is the lifetime risk of revision for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty? A 40-year observational study of patients treated with the Charnley cemented total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016; 98B: 1436–1440.

Pedersen

Mehnert

Havelin

, et al. Association between fixation technique and revision risk in total hip arthroplasty patients younger than 55 years of age. Results from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014; 22: 659–667.

Cloke

Khatri

Pinder

, et al. 284 press-fit Kinemax total knee arthroplasties followed for 10 years - Poor survival of uncemented prostheses. Acta Orthop 2008; 79: 28–33.

Swarup

Marshall

Lee

, et al. Implant survival and patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty in young patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. Hip Int 2016; 26: 367–373.

Clarke-Jenssen

Westberg

Roise

, et al. Reduced survival for uncemented compared to cemented total hip arthroplasty after operatively treated acetabular fractures. Injury 2017; 48: 2534–2539.

Swarup

Lee

Chiu

, et al. Implant survival and patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty in young patients. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 2893–2898.

Swarup

Lee

Christoph

, et al. Implant survival and patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty in young patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 398–402.

10.

Lamb

Matharu

Redmond

, et al. Patient and implant survival following intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during primary total hip arthroplasty. An analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Bone Joint J 2019; 101B: 1199–1208.

11.

Lazarinis

Karrholm

Hailer

NP.

Increased risk of revision of acetabular cups coated with hydroxyapatite: a Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register study involving 8,043 total hip replacements. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 53–59.

12.

Thillemann

Pedersen

Mehnert

, et al. The risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty among statin users: a nationwide population-based nested case-control study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92A: 1063–1072.

13.

Gruen

McNeice

Amstutz

HC.

“Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979; 141: 17–27.

14.

Engh

Massin

Suthers

KE.

Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 257: 107–128.

15.

DeLee

Charnley

Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976; 121: 20–32.

16.

Faris

Ritter

Keating

, et al. The cemented all-polyethylene acetabular cup: factors affecting survival with emphasis on the integrated polyethylene spacer - An analysis of the effect of cement spacers, cement mantle thickness, and acetabular angle on the survival of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21: 191–198.

17.

Howard

Kremers

Loechler

, et al. Comparative survival of uncemented acetabular components following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93A: 1597–1604.

18.

Junnila

Laaksonen

Eskelinen

, et al. Implant survival of the most common cemented total hip devices from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database. Acta Orthop 2016; 87: 546–553.

19.

Laaksonen

Lorimer

Gromov

, et al. Trabecular metal acetabular components in primary total hip arthroplasty Higher risk for revision compared with other uncemented cup designs in a collaborative register study including 93,709 hips. Acta Orthop 2018; 89: 259–264.

20.

Davis

Pagkalos

Kopjar

Polyethylene manufacturing characteristics have a major effect on the risk of revision surgery in cementless and hybrid total hip arthroplasties. An analysis of the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Bone Joint J 2020; 102B: 90–101.

21.

Norambuena

Wyles

Van Demark

, et al. Effect of dislocation timing following primary total hip arthroplasty on the risk of redislocation and revision. Hip Int 2019; 29: 489–495.

22.

Kuijpers

MFL

Hannink

Vehmeijer

SBW

, et al. The risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty in young patients depends on surgical approach, femoral head size and bearing type; an analysis of 19,682 operations in the Dutch arthroplasty register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20: 385.

23.

Bryan

Calkins

Karas

, et al. Primary total hip arthroplasty in patients less than 50 years of age at a mean of 16 years: highly crosslinked polyethylene significantly reduces the risk of revision. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: S238–S241.

24.

Engesaeter

Espehaug

Lie

, et al. Does cement increase the risk of infection in primary total hip arthroplasty? Revision rates in 56,275 cemented and uncemented primary THAs followed for 0-16 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2006; 77: 351–358.

25.

Hailer

Weiss

Stark

, et al. The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis An analysis of 78,098 operations in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2012; 83: 442–448.

26.

Paxton

Cafri

Havelin

, et al. Risk of revision following total hip arthroplasty: metal-on-conventional polyethylene compared with metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearing surfaces. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96A: 19–24.

27.

Varnum

Pedersen

Kjaersgaard-Andersen

, et al. Comparison of the risk of revision in cementless total hip arthroplasty with ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-polyethylene bearings Data on 11,096 patients from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 477–484.

28.

Varnum

Pedersen

Makela

, et al. Increased risk of revision of cementless stemmed total hip arthroplasty with metal-on-metal bearings Data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 469–476.