Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction:

The growing use of cementless stems is associated with an increase in implant-related complications. This global survey study investigates which parameters orthopaedic surgeons currently consider for either cemented or cementless stem fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods:

A survey regarding current practice patterns was distributed among hip arthroplasty specialists. Key questions concerned: (i) frequency of using cemented/cementless stems; (ii) frequency of using parameters which influence a choice between both; (iii) usage of specific cut-off values for parameters.

Results:

507 (out of 765) respondents, having at least 5 years’ experience and performing at least 50 cases a year, were selected for analysis. Respondents using both fixation techniques (n = 413; 81%) use a cementless stem in 69% and a cemented stem in 31%. The choice is most frequently based on: (i) patient age; (ii) cortical thickness; (iii) femoral canal shape; (iv) bone mineral density; and (v) stem fit on preoperative templating. 57% using both fixation techniques do not use a specific cut-off value for age. 92% of the respondents that do use a cut-off value for age use exclusively cemented stems in patients being ⩾72.7 years (median 75; range 50–90 years). Considerable discrepancy and even contradictory responses were present regarding the other parameters and the use of specific cut-off values.

Conclusions:

Current practice patterns regarding stem fixation in primary THA vary substantially among orthopaedic surgeons. Evidence-based guidelines are needed to define which parameters and threshold values support the best individual choice for hip stem fixation.

Keywords

Cemented hip stem cementless hip stem implant selection surgical decision making total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Callaghan

Bracha

Liu

et al . Survivorship of a Charnley total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of thirty-five years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 2617–2621.

Corten

Bourne

Charron

et al . Comparison of total hip arthroplasty performed with and without cement: a randomized trial. A concise follow-up, at twenty years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: 1335–1338.

Kim

Park

Kim

et al . Twenty-five- to twenty-seven-year results of a cemented vs a cementless stem in the same patients younger than 50 years of age. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 662–667.

Troelsen

Malchau

Sillesen

et al . A review of current fixation use and registry outcomes in total hip arthroplasty: the uncemented paradox. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 2052–2059.

Jämsen

Eskelinen

Peltola

et al . High early failure rate after cementless hip replacement in the octogenarian. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 2779–2789.

Bartlett

Kotrlik

Higgins

. Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research. ITLPJ 2001; 19: 43–50.

Malik

Gambhir

Bale

et al . Primary total hip replacement: a comparison of a nationally agreed guide to best practice and current surgical technique as determined by the North West Regional Arthroplasty Register. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004; 86: 113–118.

Bannister

. Primary total hip replacement: a guide to good practice. British Orthopaedic Association, 2012. https://www.britishhipsociety.com/uploaded/Blue%20Book%202012%202020fsh%202020nov%202012.pdf (accessed 30 March 2017).

Kuhn

Dunn

Spindler

. Evidence-based medicine for orthopedic surgeons. J Knee Surg 2005; 18: 57–63.

10.

Berry

Bozic

. Current practice patterns in primary hip and knee arthroplasty among members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (Suppl.): 2–4.

11.

Chechik

Khashan

Lador

et al . Surgical approach and prosthesis fixation in hip arthroplasty world wide. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133: 1595–1600.

12.

Triekseb

Malchau

. Editor’s spotlight/Take 5: a review of current fixation usage and registry outcomes in total hip arthroplasty: the uncemented paradox. Interview by Leopold

Seth S.

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 2047–2051.

13.

Bozic

Durbhakula

Berry

et al . Differences in patient and procedure characteristics and hospital resource use in primary and revision total joint arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20(Suppl. 3): 17–25.

14.

Parvizi

Pour

Keshavarzi

et al . Revision total hip arthroplasty in octogenarians. A case-control study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 2612–2618.

15.

White

Monk

et al . Perioperative care for the older outpatient undergoing ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg 2012; 114: 1190–1215.

16.

Abdel

Watts

Houdek

et al . Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 461–467.

17.

Corbett

Losina

Nti

et al . Population-based rates of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. PLoS One 2010; 5: e13520.

18.

Hailer

Garellick

Kärrholm

. Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 34–41.

19.

Huo

Osier

. Is cement still a fixation option for total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 2008; 23(Suppl.): 51–54.

20.

McMinn

Snell

Daniel

et al . Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344: e3319.

21.

Sheth

Brown

Moric

et al . Operative treatment of early peri-prosthetic femur fractures following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 286–291.

22.

Aro

Alm

Moritz

et al . Low BMD affects initial stability and delays stem osseointegration in cementless total hip arthroplasty in women: a 2-year RSA study of 39 patients. Acta Orthop 2012; 83: 107–114.

23.

Rhyu

Lee

Chun

et al . Does osteoporosis increase early subsidence of cementless double-tapered femoral stem in hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 1305–1309.

24.

Flamme

Stukenborg-Colsman

Wirth

. Evaluation of the learning curves associated with uncemented primary total hip arthroplasty depending on the experience of the surgeon. Hip Int 2006; 16: 191–197.

25.

Peltola

Malmivaara

Paavola

. Hip prosthesis introduction and early revision risk. A nationwide population-based study covering 39,125 operations. Acta Orthop 2013; 84: 25–31.

26.

Quintana

Aróstegui

Azkarate

et al . Use of explicit criteria for total hip joint replacement fixation techniques. Health Policy 2002; 60: 1–16.

27.

Dorr

Faugere

Mackel

et al . Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 1993; 14: 231–242.

28.

Noble

Box

Kamaric

et al . The effect of aging on the shape of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995 316; 31–44.

29.

Overgaard

. Danish hip arthroplasty register. Annual Report, 2013. http://www.dhr.dk (accessed 30 March 2017).

30.

Porter

. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 12th Annual Report, 2015. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk (accessed 30 March 2017).