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

• Published in: Journal of international medical research Vol. 48; no. 9; p. 300060520941974
• Main Authors: Zhang, Chi, Chen, Meiji, Yu, Weiguang, Han, Xiulan, Ye, Junxing, Zhuang, Jintao
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.09.2020; Sage Publications Ltd; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Bone Cements - therapeutic use; Femoral Neck Fractures - surgery; Follow-Up Studies; Hip Prosthesis; Humans; Joint replacement surgery; Joint surgery; Regression analysis; Reoperation; Retrospective Clinical Research Report; Retrospective Studies; Survival analysis; Treatment Outcome; Harris hip score; cemented; uncemented; Total hip arthroplasty; survival; revision
• ISSN: 0300-0605; 1473-2300
• DOI: 10.1177/0300060520941974

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.