The optimal fixation method in total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. Initial concerns related to the long-term performance of cement fixation as well as cement disease led to the development of cementless implants, and registry data has indicated that the use of this type of fixation has increased in recent years. However, data from these same registries has not shown any improvement in outcomes when compared to cement fixation. On the contrary, while similar outcomes are seen when comparing these fixation types in younger patients (<70 years of age), cementless fixation has shown increased implant failure and revision rates in elderly patients (>70 years of age). Given the increased projected volume of THA in the United States over the next decade, it is important to utilise available data to make clinical decisions that minimise not only individual patient harm, but also the burden on the healthcare system itself. This review provides an overview of currently available outcomes data comparing cement and cementless fixation, as well as an updated analysis of current trends in fixation use in THA. We furthermore provide a comprehensive technique guide to help surgeons optimise cement fixation of the femoral component for THA and hemiarthroplasty.
LearmonthIDYoungCRorabeckC.The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet2007; 370: 1508–1519.
2.
BlannkensteinMLentineBNelmsNJ.The use of cement in hip arthroplasty: a contemporary perspective. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2020; 28: e586–e594.
3.
CharnleyJ.Total hip replacement by low-friction arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1970; 72: 7–21.
4.
CharnelyJ.The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. 1970. Clin Orthop Relat Res2005; 430: 3–11.
5.
WroblewskiBMSineyPDFlemingPA.Charnley low-frictional torque arthroplasty: follow-up for 30 to 40 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br2009; 91: 447–450.
SporerSMPaproskyWG.Biologic fixation and bone ingrowth. Orthop Clin North Am2005; 36: 105–111, vii.
8.
TroelsenAMalchauESillesenN, et al. A review of current fixation use and registry outcomes in total hip arthroplasty: the uncemented paradox. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 2052–2059.
9.
BunyozKIMalchauEMalchauH, et al. Has the use of fixation techniques in THA changes in this decade? The uncemented paradox revisited. Clin Orthop Relat Res2020; 478: 697–704.
10.
ScanelliJAReiserGRSlobodaJF, et al. Cemented femoral component use in hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2019; 27: 119–127.
11.
TanzerMGravesSEPengA, et al. Is cemented or cementless femoral stem fixation more durable in patients older than 75 years of age? A comparison of the best-performing stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res2018; 476: 1428–1437.
12.
BrowneJARyanCDuensingI, et al. There has been a gap in our U.S. training: the path forward. 2022 Annual Meeting of the AAOS, The Hip Society/AAHKS Specialty Day, 26 March 2022; Chicago, IL, USA.
13.
KhanujaHSVakilJJGoddardMS, et al. Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2011; 93: 500–509.
14.
Corten, BourneRBCharronKD, 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 Am2011; 93: 1335–1338.
15.
Della ValleCJMeskoNWQuigleyL, et al. Primary total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated acetabular component: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am2009; 91: 1130–1135.
16.
YangCHanXWangJ, et al. Cemented versus uncemented femoral component total hip arthroplasty in elderly patient with primary osteoporosis: retrospective analysis with 5-year follow-up. J Int Med Res2019; 47: 1610–1619.
17.
BlanksteinMLentineBNelmsNJ.The use of cement in hip arthroplasty: a contemporary perspective. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2020; 28: e586–e594.
18.
ZhuYChenWSunT, et al. Risk factors for the periprosthetic fracture after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scan J Surg2015; 104: 139–145.
19.
FowlerAKGrayARGwynne-JonesDP.Hybrid fixation for total hip arthroplasty showed improved survival over cemented and uncemented fixation: a single-center survival analysis of 2156 hips at 12–18 years. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 2711–2717.
20.
HailerNPGarellickGKärrholmJ.Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop2010; 81: 34–41.
21.
KellyMPChanPHPrenticeHA, et al. Cause-specific stem revision risk in primary total hip arthroplasty using cemented vs cementless femoral stem fixation in a US cohort. J Arthroplasty2022; 37: 89–96.e1.
22.
HeckmannNDChenXTBallatoriAM, et al. Cemented vs cementless femoral fixation for total hip arthroplasty after displaced femoral neck fracture: a nationwide analysis of short-term complications and readmission rates. J Arthroplasty2021; 36: 3667–3675.e4.
23.
GarlandAGordonMGarellickG, et al. Risk of early mortality after cemented compared with cementless total hip arthroplasty: a nationwide matched cohort study. Bone Joint J2017; 99-B: 37–43.
24.
ScottTSalvatoreAWooP, et al. Polished, collarless, tapered, cemented stems for primary hip arthroplasty may exhibit high rate of periprosthetic fracture at short-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1120–1125.
25.
MohammedJMukkaSHedbeckCJ, et al. Reduced periprosthetic fracture rate when changing from a tapered polished stem to an anatomical stem for cemented hip arthroplasty: an observational prospective cohort study with a follow-up of 2 years. Acta Orthop2019; 90: 427–432.
26.
American Joint Replacement Registry. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. AAOS annual report 2021: the eighth annual report of the AJRR on hip and knee arthroplasty. https://connect.registryapps.net/2021-ajrr-annual-report (2021, accessed 22 April 2022).
BannisterGCMilesAW.The influence of cementing technique and blood on the strength of the bone-cement interface. Eng Med1988; 17: 131–133.
29.
KrauseWKrugWMillerJE.Strength of the cement-bone interface. Clin Orthop Relat Res1982; 163: 290–299.
30.
DozierJKHarriganTKurtzWH, et al. Does increased cement pressure produce superior femoral component fixation?J Arthroplasty2000; 15: 488–495.
31.
HeiselCNormanTRuppR, et al. In vitro performance of intramedullary cement restrictors in total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech2003; 36: 835–843.
32.
BenjaminJBGieGALeeAJC, et al. Cementing technique and the effects of bleedingJ Bone Joint Surg Br1987; 69; 620–624.
33.
SimpsonPBreuschSJ.Cement gun performance matters. In:SimpsonPMalchauH (eds) The well-cemented total hip arthroplasty: theory and practice. Boston, MA: Springer, 2005, pp.155–159.
34.
ParkerMJGurusamaKSAzegamiS.Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2010; 6: CD001706.
35.
MeiXYGongYJSafirO, et al. Long-term outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: a systemic review of the contemporary literature. Can J. Surg2019; 62: 249–258.
36.
KonanSAbdelMPHaddadFS.Cemented versus uncemented hip implant fixation: should there be age thresholds?Bone Joint Res2020; 8: 604–607.
37.
RossBJLeeOCHarrisMB, et al. Rates of osteoporosis management and secondary preventative treatment after primary fragility fractures. JBJS Open Access2021; 6: e20.00142.
38.
MurrayDW.Cemented femoral fixation: the North Atlantic divide. Bone Joint J2013; 95-B(Suppl. A): 51–52.
39.
BredowJBoeseCKFlorkemeierT, et al. Factors affecting operative time in primary total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective single hospital cohort study of 7674 cases. Technol Health Care2018; 26: 857–866.
40.
SloanMPremkumarAShethNP.Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am2018; 100: 1455–1460.
41.
SchwartzAMFarleyKXGuildGN, et al. Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasties in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty2020; 35: S79–S85.
