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

Gait pattern in patients treated with a total hip arthroplasty due to an acute displaced cervical neck fracture: a randomised comparison between 29 cases with a cemented femoral stem and 16 cases with an uncemented femoral stem

BACKGROUND

The choice between cemented or uncemented stem fixation in the treatment of a femoral neck fracture may influence patient rehabilitation and the resulting gait pattern, due to potential differences in implant positioning and fixation. We used gait analysis to study temporal gait parameters, hip kinematics and kinetics in patients who, 2 years previously, had been randomised to treatment with a cemented or uncemented stem and due to an acute femoral neck fracture.

METHODS

45 Patients implanted with a cemented Lubinus SP II (n = 29) and an uncemented (n = 16) Corail stem were studied. Gait analysis was performed using a 16-camera motion capture system and force plates. 28 subjects served as controls. Temporal gait parameters, hip kinematics and kinetics were analysed. The patients had no or minimum pain (median Harris pain score 44, range 40-44) and the majority had no limp (median Harris limp score 11, range 5-11).

RESULTS

Temporospatial gait parameters and abduction-adduction motions and moments did not differ between patients with cemented or uncemented stems (p > 0.05). Patients with cemented stems did, however, show more hip flexion and less extension during walking than those with an uncemented stem (p < 0.05). Moreover, the flexion-extension range was less in the cemented group (p < 0.04). Compared with controls, the hip fracture patients walked more slowly, with a shorter stride length and a longer stance phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased hip flexion and reduced extension in patients using the Lubinus SP II cemented stem could be an effect of its anteverted neck, but this question requires further study. Despite acute treatment with THA, hip fracture patients demonstrated a change in gait pattern compared with controls 2 years after the operation. This suggests that these changes are caused by the presence of an implant, or the soft-tissue trauma partly caused by the surgery than by any degenerative disease present in patients undergoing elective surgery.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04791605.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Non-database Comparative Studies on Cemented Versus Uncemented Femoral Stems in Primary Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Cemented and uncemented femoral stems have shown excellent survivorship and outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Cementless stems have become increasingly common in the United States; however, multiple large database studies have suggested that elderly patients may have fewer complications with a cemented stem. As conclusions from large databases may be limited due to variations in data collection, this study investigated femoral stem survivorship and complication rates based on cement status in non-database studies.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were utilized to identify articles for inclusion up until June 2021. Included articles directly compared outcomes and complications between patients undergoing primary THA without femoral stem cementing to those with cementing. Studies were excluded if they utilized large databases or consisted of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of trauma.

RESULTS

Of the 1700 studies, 309 were selected for abstract review and nineteen for full-text review. A total of seven studies were selected. Meta-analyses indicated substantial heterogeneity between studies. There were no differences in revision rates (cementless: 5.53% vs. cemented 8.91%, P = .543), infection rates (cementless: 0.60% vs. cemented: 0.90%, P = .692), or periprosthetic fracture rates (cementless: 0.52% vs. cemented: 0.51%, P = .973) between groups.

CONCLUSION

There is scarce literature comparing outcomes and complications between cemented and cementless femoral stems in primary elective THA without utilizing a database methodology. In our study, there were no differences in complications detected on meta-analyses. Given previous findings in database studies, additional high-quality cohort studies are required to determine if selected patients may benefit from a cemented femoral stem.

Comparison of functional outcomes and complications of cemented vs uncemented total hip arthroplasty in the elderly neck of femur fracture patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The neck of femur fractures in the elderly is a global concern. These fractures impair the quality of living and add to morbidity and mortality. A Multitude of treatment options for the same. This systematic review focuses on evaluating outcomes between cemented and uncemented total hip replacement in the elderly population with neck of femur fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The search was conducted in databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, open grey, and Cochrane following PRISMA guidelines. The studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included, scrutinized for data analysis, and also quality appraisal of all the included studies was conducted to be included in this article.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies were included (2 RCT, 5 retrospective studies) comprising 1171 THRs. Data analysis showed a higher HHS in cemented compared to uncemented(p < 0.001). The uncemented group had a significantly higher rate of revision, dislocation, and periprosthetic fracture compared to cemented group(p < 0.001). However, VAS score, loosening rates, and heterotopic ossification were similar in both statistically insignificant groups.

CONCLUSION

Choosing between cemented and uncemented techniques had been a controversy with lesser data due to higher morbidity and mortality. This systematic review provides information regarding functional outcomes and complications in both groups. The cemented group had better outcomes and lesser complications which should be preferred in elderly patients as the conclusion of this study. However, a larger RCT with better follow-up is still required.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis.