Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

This study was performed assess the clinical outcomes of elderly patients with osteoporotic femoral neck fractures (FNFs) (AO/OTA: 31B/C) treated by initial uncemented total hip arthroplasty (UTA) or cemented total hip arthroplasty (CTA).

Methods

This study involved consecutive elderly patients with osteoporotic FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C) treated by initial UTA or CTA in our medical centre from 2010 to 2015. The primary outcomes were the Harris hip score (HHS) and the rates of revision, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation.

Results

In total, 224 patients were included in the final analysis (UTA, n = 114; CTA, n = 110). The mean follow-up duration was 60 months (range, 32–68 months). The mean HHS was 75.34 ± 18.82 for UTA and 80.12 ± 17.83 for CTA. Significant dissimilarities were detected in the rates of revision, loosening, and periprosthetic fracture between UTA and CTA (14.0% vs. 5.5%, 20.2% vs. 10.0%, and 12.3% vs. 4.5%, respectively). A significant difference was also detected in the probability of revision between the two groups.

Conclusion

Elderly patients with osteoporotic FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C) treated with CTA show greater improvements in functional outcomes and key orthopaedic complications than those treated with UTA.

Keywords

Femoral neck fracture arthroplasty outcome complication retrospective osteoporosis

Introduction

Management of femoral neck fractures (FNFs) (AO/OTA: 31B/C) in elderly patients is still undergoing considerable research.¹,² Uncemented total hip arthroplasty (UTA) or cemented total hip arthroplasty (CTA) for displaced FNFs tends to be a recognised surgical strategy.^3–5 Comparisons between UTA and CTA for elderly individuals with an FNF generally favour CTA; this is primarily attributed to the exceptional clinical outcomes of CTA in terms of relieving pain and improving daily activities as well as the higher rate of major orthopaedic complications (i.e., revision, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation) associated with UTA.⁴ However, recent studies of UTA in elderly individuals have demonstrated encouraging short-term clinical outcomes.^6,7 Moreover, cemented prosthesis syndrome tends to occur more frequently in CTA than UTA.⁸ Cemented prosthesis syndrome theoretically poses a significant threat to the patient’s life, although the specific probability of this threat has not been calculated.^8,9 Hence, whether to utilise CTA for elderly individuals may present the clinician with a dilemma.⁹ The lack of consensus regarding which technique (UTA or CTA) is preferable for treating FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C) in elderly individuals is related to the remarkable distinction in clinical outcomes between the two types of implants.^6,10

Most previous studies have involved highly concentrated medical centres and several brands of prostheses.^3,5,6 Additionally, short-term follow-up is commonplace in these studies. To overcome these drawbacks of previous studies and to compare the mid-term results of the two prostheses, we assessed the clinical outcomes of elderly patients with osteoporotic FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C) treated with initial UTA or CTA with a mean follow-up of 5 years.

Materials and methods

Study population

Ethical approval was obtained from the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, and the requirement for informed consent was waived by the Investigational Review Board. Consecutive elderly individuals with the principle diagnosis of an FNF (AO/OTA: 31B/C) who underwent initial UTA or CTA from 1 March 2010 to 31 March 2015 and for whom detailed information was available throughout follow-up were identified from the orthopaedics department of the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University. The manufacturer details of the stems and cups employed in the arthroplasty are shown in Table 1. The surgical procedure and postoperative rehabilitation protocol were described in our previously published study.¹¹ The inclusion criteria were closed FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C), active and cognitively intact patients, age of ≥65 years, independently mobile prior to the injury, and a bone mineral density T-score of <−2.5 at the femoral neck. The major exclusion criteria were multiple fractures or contralateral limb fractures, pathological FNFs, lower limb dyskinesia prior to surgery, cancer, planned surgery, polytrauma, severe comorbidities (e.g., thyroid disorder with calcium and phosphorus metabolism disorder, diabetes with complications), drug abuse affecting bone healing or bone metabolism, early interruption of follow-up (<12 months), and cognitive impairment. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and every 12 months thereafter. The primary outcomes were the Harris hip score (HHS) and the rates of revision, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation.

Table 1.

Manufacturer details of stems and cups employed in the arthroplasty procedures.

Procedure	Stem	Cup
UTA (n = 114)	CORAIL¹	REFLECTION Uncemented²
CTA (n = 110)	Exeter³	Exeter³

¹DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA.

²Smith & Nephew, London, UK.

³Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI, USA.

UTA, uncemented total hip arthroplasty; CTA, cemented total hip arthroplasty.

Statistical analysis

Revision was defined as partial or complete replacement of the prosthesis.¹² Loosening of the acetabulum and/or stem components as well as dislocation were defined based on a previous description.¹³ Periprosthetic fracture was confirmed by X-ray or computed tomography examination. Continuous data (i.e., age, bone mineral density, body mass index, follow-up time, and HHS) were compared using an independent-samples t test, and categorical variables (i.e., sex, side [left/right], fracture type, comorbidities, mechanism of injury, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and major orthopaedic complications) were compared using the chi-square test or the Mann–Whitney test. A Kaplan–Meier survival curve was used to assess the probability of revision. Hazard ratios were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model. The significance threshold was set at p < 0.05. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

In total, 224 consecutive patients (224 arthroplasties) with an FNF (AO/OTA: 31B/C) who underwent initial UTA or CTA met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis (Figure 1). The mean follow-up duration was 60 months (range, 32–68 months). The patients’ mean age was 68.52 ± 7.79 years for UTA and 68.88 ± 8.15 for CTA. The mean body mass index was 25.78 ± 5.64 kg/m² for UTA and 25.91 ± 6.22 kg/m² for CTA. The patients’ baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups (Table 2).

Figure 1.

Flow diagram exhibiting methods for identifying patients with FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C) who underwent an initial UTA or CTA.

Table 2.

Patient demographics and outcomes.

Variable	UTA (n = 114)	CTA (n = 110)	p-value
Sex, female/male	62/52	57/53	0.700
Age, years	68.52 ± 7.79	68.88 ± 8.15	0.127
BMI, kg/m²	25.78 ± 5.64	25.91 ± 6.22	0.201
BMD	−3.76 ± 0.55	−3.81 ± 0.63	0.162
Side, left/right	65/49	62/48	0.921
FNFs, AO/OTA type			0.965
31B	66 (57.9)	64 (58.2)
31C	48 (42.1)	46 (41.8)
Comorbidities			0.317
Diabetes mellitus	31 (27.2)	35 (31.8)
Hypertension	38 (33.3)	32 (29.1)
Cerebrovascular disease	23 (20.2)	18 (16.4)
Mechanism of FNFs			0.760
Traffic accident	29 (25.4)	26 (23.6)
Falling	63 (55.3)	68 (61.8)
Tamping accident	22 (19.3)	16 (14.5)
ASA classification			0.993
1	36 (31.6)	35 (31.8)
2	58 (50.9)	64 (58.2)
3	38 (33.3)	37 (33.6)
HHS prior to surgery	57.22 ± 16.78	57.54 ± 17.68	0.103

Data are presented as n, n (%), or mean ± standard deviation.

UTA, uncemented total hip arthroplasty; CTA, cemented total hip arthroplasty; HHS, Harris hip score; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; BMD, bone mineral density; FNFs, femoral neck fractures.

Primary outcomes

Improved functional outcomes were noted in both groups as indicated by the HHS (UTA: 57.22 ± 16.78 prior to surgery vs. 75.34 ± 18.82 at final analysis, p < 0.001; CTA: 57.54 ± 17.68 prior to surgery vs. 80.12 ± 17.83 at final analysis, p < 0.001). At the end of follow-up, the HHS was significantly different between the two groups (UTA: 75.34 ± 18.82 vs. CTA: 80.12 ± 17.83, p = 0.007), and patients who underwent CTA had higher functional scores than those who underwent UTA. No distinct between-group differences were observed at any time point before 24 months postoperatively (Table 3).

Table 3.

Comparison of hip functional scores.

Months postoperatively	UTA (n = 114)	CTA (n = 110)	p-value
3	79.16 ± 10.35	78.93 ± 9.84	0.215
6	82.76 ± 9.61	81.64 ± 10.73	0.176
12	87.29 ± 11.47	86.76 ± 10.52	0.231
24	88.57 ± 10.23	87.72 ± 11.97	0.105
36	83.25 ± 16.34	85.26 ± 14.80	0.026*
48	81.52 ± 18.60	83.83 ± 16.29	0.027*
60	79.17 ± 19.44	82.63 ± 17.28	0.014*
Final follow-up	75.34 ± 18.82	80.12 ± 17.83	0.007*

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

*Statistically significant

UTA, uncemented total hip arthroplasty; CTA, cemented total hip arthroplasty.

No early (<1 year) postoperative complications were detected, including revision, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, or dislocation. The rate of key orthopaedic complications was 52.6% (60/114) for UTA and 24.5% (27/110) for CTA (p < 0.001) (Table 4). In the UTA group, 16 (14.0%) patients underwent revision UTA, 23 (20.2%) developed prosthesis loosening, 14 (12.3%) developed periprosthetic fractures, and 7 (6.1%) developed prosthesis dislocation. In the CTA group, 6 (5.5%) patients underwent revision UTA, 11 (10.0%) developed prosthesis loosening, 5 (4.5%) developed periprosthetic fractures, and 5 (4.5%) developed prosthesis dislocation. The average time interval from the initial surgery to revision UTA was 27 months (range, 18–56 months) for UTA and 32 months (range, 23–54 months) for CTA (p = 0.012). Significant differences in revision, loosening, and periprosthetic fracture were observed between the UTA and CTA groups (revision: 14.0% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.031; loosening: 20.2% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.034; and periprosthetic fracture: 12.3% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.038, respectively). A significant difference in the probability of revision was also detected between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.16–0.79; p = 0.0203) (Figure 2). No significant difference was found in the rate of prosthesis dislocation between the UTA and CTA groups (6.1% vs. 4.5%, respectively).

Table 4.

Rates of key orthopaedic complications.

Complications	UTA (n = 114)	CTA (n = 110)	p-value
Prosthesis revision	16 (14.0)	6 (5.5)	0.031*
Prosthesis loosening	23 (20.2)	11 (10.0)	0.034*
Periprosthetic fracture	14 (12.3)	5 (4.5)	0.038*
Dislocation	7 (6.1)	5 (4.5)	0.596

Data are presented as n (%).

*Statistically significant.

UTA, uncemented total hip arthroplasty; CTA, cemented total hip arthroplasty.

Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier curves showing probability of revision after primary surgery. *HR was calculated per the Cox proportional hazards model, with age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, body mass index, bone mineral density, and femoral neck fracture type as covariates and surgery as the time-dependent factor.

Discussion

This review characterised the outcomes of a solitary brand of a total hip arthroplasty implant during a mean follow-up of 5 years in elderly patients with osteoporotic FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C). The data demonstrated that patients treated with CTA showed better improvements in functional outcomes and key orthopaedic complications than those treated with UTA.

The current findings are consistent with previous studies.^3,6,14,15 Although the better functional outcomes and lower rates of revision, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation are apt to favour CTA, no significant between-group differences in the HHS were detected during the initial 2 years after surgery. Probable explanations include the time-dependent clinical efficacy of the implants and the properties of the prostheses.^3,4,6,16 Whether UTA or CTA is preferable in elderly patients with a displaced FNF remains controversial.^6,9,17 A recent retrospective study involving 324 patients with an FNF (AO/OTA, 31B) who underwent primary unilateral UTA or CTA showed that the mean HHS was 74.09 ± 6.23 for CTA and 79.01 ± 10.21 for UTA (p = 0.012).¹⁷ A single-blinded randomised controlled trial (CHANCE-trial) involving 140 individuals treated with an uncemented or cemented tapered hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem and a cemented cup demonstrated that the cemented tapered hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem and cemented cup provided better functional results than the uncemented tapered hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem and cemented cup.¹⁶

In the present study, the Kaplan–Meier survival curve demonstrated that at the 2-year analysis, neither group showed evidence of a target event, and no significant between-group differences were found in the rates of revision, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, or dislocation. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to explore whether the prosthesis material influences the bone microstructure, the peak effect, and the duration of the effect, and if so, what mechanisms affect the bone microstructure and whether there is a way to change the outcome by blocking this effect during a >2-year follow-up. We currently have one option for prevention or avoidance of adverse events, and these changes in treatment strategies may play a key role in improving the clinical results (if the effects of the prosthesis material itself cannot be blocked).¹⁸ There is still a lack of consensus on standards for prosthesis revision in this context.¹⁹

When assessing the impact of CTA on the target events, we did not observe an increased incidence of severe orthopaedic complications other than the complications mentioned in this study. In one systematic review, the authors presumed that CTA was superior to UTA with respect to functional scores and tolerable orthopaedic complications²⁰ We obtained analogous results in terms of hip-related complications and functional scores. Multi-centre hip arthroplasty data indicate that UTA remains a high-risk factor for late revision, loosening, and periprosthetic fractures.^8,10 The notable dissimilarities in the results of these various studies on hip-related complications may be largely attributed to the design of the prosthesis (prosthesis size and material selection) and the surgeon’s experience.^4,6

This study has several limitations. It had a small sample, and its retrospective design is association with some inherent disadvantages. We did not stratify the patients according to fracture type or sex. In addition, the potential comorbidities between groups were not well exposed and compared. The statistical power used to address differences between the groups was insufficient. Differences in the patients’ baseline data may have affected the results. Furthermore, our analysis did not determine whether the deaths were instigated by bone cement. The risk of hip-related complications was not analysed. The survival curve of other prosthesis-related complications was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and competitive risks (i.e., death) could have affected the survival of the prosthesis. Patients who died lost the opportunity for revision. Hence, the revision rate might have been underestimated during this long follow-up with a fairly high mortality rate.

In conclusion, the findings described in the current review uphold an increasing body of evidence that CTA provides higher functional scores and lower rates of hip-related complications than does UTA in elderly patients with osteoporotic displaced FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C). In this context, we recommend CTA for the treatment of such FNFs. Our findings may be conducive to alleviating continuing debate regarding which prosthesis (UTA or CTA) is more suitable for the elderly population. A future prospective study may be essential to confirm whether our conclusion continues to be acceptable as the follow-up time increases.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

ORCID iDs

Weiguang Yu

Guowei Han

References

Chammout

Muren

Laurencikas

, et al. More complications with uncemented than cemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial with 69 patients. Acta Orthop 2017; 88: 145–151.

Gjertsen

Lie

Fevang

, et al. Total hip replacement after femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: results of 8,577 fractures reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2007; 78: 491–497.

Hailer

Garellick

Karrholm

Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: evaluation of 170,413 operations. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 34–41.

Makela

Eskelinen

Paavolainen

, et al. Cementless total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in patients aged 55 years and older: results of the 8 most common cementless designs compared to cemented reference implants in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 42–52.

Yli-Kyyny

Sund

Heinanen

, et al. Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures? Acta Orthop 2014; 85: 49–53.

Yang

Han

Wang

, et al. Cemented versus uncemented femoral component total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients with primary osteoporosis: retrospective analysis with 5-year follow-up. J Int Med Res 2019; 47: 1610–1619.

Solarino

Zagra

Piazzolla

, et al. Results of 200 consecutive ceramic-on-ceramic cementless hip arthroplasties in patients up to 50 years of age: a 5-24 years of follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: S232–S237.

Hanly

Whitehouse

Lorimer

, et al. The outcome of cemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis defines a proficiency threshold: results of 22,956 cases from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 1711–1717.

Imam

Shehata

MSA

Elsehili

, et al. Contemporary cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a meta-analysis of forty-two thousand forty-six hips. Int Orthop 2019; 43: 1715–1723.

10.

Jameson

Baker

Mason

, et al. The design of the acetabular component and size of the femoral head influence the risk of revision following 34 721 single-brand cemented hip replacements: a retrospective cohort study of medium-term data from a national joint registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94B: 1611–1617.

11.

Zeng

Zhan

Zhang

, et al. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty after failed proximal femoral nail antirotations or dynamic hip screw fixations for stable intertrochanteric femur fractures: a retrospective study with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18: 38.

12.

Johnson

Abdel

Frank

, et al. Impact of frailty on outcomes after primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 56–64.e5.

13.

Chen

Tsai

, et al. Partial component-retained two-stage reconstruction for chronic infection after uncemented total hip arthroplasty: results of sixteen cases after five years of follow-up. Int Orthop 2017; 41: 2479–2486.

14.

DeAngelis

Ademi

Staff

, et al. Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized trial with early follow-up. J Orthop Trauma 2012; 26: 135–140.

15.

Rolfson

Donahue

Hallsten

, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in cemented and uncemented total hip replacements. Hip Int 2016; 26: 451–457.

16.

Chammout

Muren

Boden

, et al. Cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: study protocol for a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (CHANCE-trial). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 398.

17.

Liu

Hua

, et al. Long-term follow-up outcomes for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with uncemented versus cemented femoral components: a retrospective observational study with a 5-year minimum follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14: 371.

18.

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.

19.

Schmale

Lachiewicz

Kelley

SS.

Early failure of revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented precoated femoral components - Comparison with uncemented components at 2 to 8 years.

J Arthroplasty 2000; 15: 718–729.

20.

Azegami

Gurusamy

Parker

MJ.

Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fractures: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Hip Int 2011; 21: 509–517.

Uncemented versus cemented total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients with osteoporosis: A retrospective analysis

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study population

Statistical analysis

Results

Primary outcomes

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

Funding

ORCID iDs

References