Mortality and revision rate of cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty after hip fracture: an analysis of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

Background and purpose - Femoral neck fractures are commonly treated with cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasties (HA). We evaluated differences in mortality and revision rates in this fragile patient group.Patients and methods - From January 1, 2007 until December 31, 2016, 22,356 HA procedures from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were included. For each HA, follow-up until death, revision, or end of follow-up (December 31, 2016) was determined. The crude revision rate was determined by competing risk analysis. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of fixation method (cemented vs. uncemented) on death or revision. Age, sex, BMI, Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating, ASA grade, surgical approach, and previous surgery were included as potential confounders.Results - 1-year mortality rates did not differ between cemented and uncemented HA. 9-year mortality rates were 53% (95% CI 52-54) in cemented HA compared to 56% (CI 54-58) in uncemented HA. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed similar mortality between cemented and uncemented HA (HR 1.0, CI 0.96-1.1). A statistically significantly lower 9-year revision rate of 3.1% (CI 2.7-3.6) in cemented HA compared with 5.1% (CI 4.2-6.2) in the uncemented HA was found with a lower hazard ratio for revision in cemented compared with uncemented HA (HR 0.56, CI 0.47-0.67).Interpretation - Long-term mortality rates did not differ between patients with a cemented or uncemented HA after an acute femoral neck fracture. Revision rates were lower in cemented compared with uncemented HA.

Perioperative, short-, and long-term mortality related to fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty: a study on 79,557 patients in the -Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Background and purpose - There are reports on perioperative deaths in cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA), and THA revisions are associated with increased mortality. We compared perioperative (intraoperatively or within 3 days of surgery), short-term and long-term mortality after all-cemented, all-uncemented, reverse hybrid (cemented cup and uncemented stem), and hybrid (uncemented cup and cemented stem) THAs.Patients and methods - We studied THA patients in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 2005 to 2018, and performed Kaplan-Meier and Cox survival analyses with time of death as end-point. Mortality was calculated for all patients, and in 3 defined risk groups: high-risk patients (age ≥ 75 years and ASA > 2), intermediate-risk patients (age ≥ 75 years or ASA > 2), low-risk patients (age < 75 years and ASA ≤ 2). We also calculated mortality in patients with THA due to a hip fracture, and in patients with commonly used, contemporary, well-documented THAs. Adjustement was made for age, sex, ASA class, indication, and year of surgery.Results - Among the 79,557 included primary THA patients, 11,693 (15%) died after 5.8 (0-14) years' follow-up. Perioperative deaths were rare (30/105) and found in all fixation groups. Perioperative mortality after THA was 4/105 in low-risk patients, 34/105 in intermediate-risk patients, and 190/105 in high-risk patients. High-risk patients had 9 (CI 1.3-58) times adjusted risk of perioperative death compared with low-risk patients. All 4 modes of fixation had similar adjusted 3-day, 30-day, 90-day, 3-30 day, 30-90 day, 90-day-10-year, and 10-year mortality risk.Interpretation - Perioperative, short-term, and long-term mortality after primary THA were similar, regardless of fixation type. Perioperative deaths were rare and associated with age and comorbidity, and not type of fixation.

Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cemented hemiarthroplasty is preferred in treating displaced fractures of the femoral neck in the elderly. The cementing process may cause a fat embolism, leading to serious complications or death. In this study, we wanted to determine whether use of uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) would lead to reduced mortality and whether there are differences in the complications associated with these different types of arthroplasty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the PERFECT database, which combines information from various treatment registries, we identified 25,174 patients who were treated with hemiarthroplasty for a femoral neck fracture in the years 1999-2009. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were reoperations, complications, re-admissions, and treatment times. RESULTS: Mortality was lower in the first postoperative days when uncemented HA was used. At 1 week, there was no significant difference in mortality (3.9% for cemented HA and 3.4% for uncemented HA; p = 0.09). This was also true after one year (26% for cemented HA and 27% for uncemented HA; p = 0.1). In patients treated with uncemented HA, there were significantly more mechanical complications (3.7% vs. 2.8%; p < 0.001), hip re-arthroplasties (1.7% vs. 0.95; p < 0.001), and femoral fracture operations (1.2% vs. 0.52%; p < 0.001) during the first 90 days after hip fracture surgery. INTERPRETATION: From registry data, mortality appears to be similar for cemented and uncemented HA. However, uncemented HA is associated with more frequent mechanical complications and reoperations.

Perioperative complications after cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty in hip fracture patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Both cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasties are acceptable methods for treating displaced femoral neck fractures. Cemented hemiarthroplasty has traditionally been recommended as being more safe and reliable. However, the cementing process carries a risk of fat embolism and cardiovascular problems. This study attempted to determine whether these complications can be avoided when using a modern uncemented stem. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared 222 hip fracture patients treated with hemiarthroplasty in our hospital. A total of 100 of these patients were treated with a hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented hemiendoprosthesis (Bi-Metric BFx) and 122 patients with a cemented hemiendoprosthesis (Lubinus SPII). Information on mortality and complications during the first 18.7 months was retrieved from patient files. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Nine perioperative fat-embolic events were found in the cemented group and none in the uncemented group. During the initial hospital treatment, there were five deaths (4.1%) in the cemented group and one death (1%) in the uncemented group. There were significantly more perioperative fractures in the uncemented versus cemented group (7% versus 0.8%). We conclude that uncemented hemiarthroplasty is associated with more perioperative fractures than cemented hemiarthroplasty. However, perioperative cardiovascular disturbances may be less frequent with uncemented hemiarthroplasty, and early mortality may be lower with uncemented hemiarthroplasty.

No difference in mortality between cemented and uncemented hemiprosthesis for elderly patients with cervical hip fracture. A prospective randomized study on 334 patients over 75 years.

INTRODUCTION: Laboratory and human mechanical studies indicated that chemical substances in bone cement had toxic and prothrombotic effects. Impaction of cement added a mechanical trauma to the reaming and broaching procedure and contributed to a substantial local and systemic thrombin generation. Case reports and materials have indicated bone cement as the immediate trigger of cardiorespiratory and vascular dysfunction, occasionally fatal, and described as the bone cement implantation syndrome. In spite of this knowledge, bone cement has gained popularity and is widely used for prosthesis fixation, possibly due to a lack of clinical evidence supporting the basic science indicating bone cement as a mortality risk factor. METHOD: This is a prospective, randomized study comparing cemented and non cemented hemiprosthesis on patients suffering a dislocated cervical hip fracture. Perioperative characteristics and 1 year mortality differences between the groups were estimated. PATIENTS: Hundred and thirty-four patients over 75 years were enrolled from two hospitals in Norway. Average age was 84 years, 75 % were female and 60 % had symptomatic comorbidities. RESULTS: We find no difference in mortality between cemented and uncemented hemiprosthesis up to 1 year (HR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.51-1.18, p = 0.233). However, statistically significant reduced operation time and blood loss were found in the non-cemented group. (mean difference of 13 min, 95 % CI 4-22, p = 0.004 and 92 ml 95 % CI 3-181, p = 0.043, respectively). CONCLUSION: Installation of non-cemented hemiprostheses in elderly with hip fracture may have benefits perioperatively regarding operation time and bleeding, and do not seem to influence 1 year mortality relative to cemented implants.

Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine mortality and revision rates among patients with osteoarthritis undergoing hip arthroplasty and to compare these rates between patients undergoing cemented or uncemented procedures and to compare outcomes between men undergoing stemmed total hip replacements and Birmingham hip resurfacing. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: National Joint Registry. POPULATION: About 275,000 patient records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hip arthroplasty procedures were linked to the time to any subsequent mortality or revision (implant failure). Flexible parametric survival analysis methods were used to analyse time to mortality and also time to revision. Comparisons between procedure groups were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and complexity. RESULTS: As there were large baseline differences in the characteristics of patients receiving cemented, uncemented, or resurfacing procedures, unadjusted comparisons are inappropriate. Multivariable survival analyses identified a higher mortality rate for patients undergoing cemented compared with uncemented total hip replacement (adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.16); conversely, there was a lower revision rate with cemented procedures (0.53, 0.50 to 0.57). These translate to small predicted differences in population averaged absolute survival probability at all time points. For example, compared with the uncemented group, at eight years after surgery the predicted probability of death in the cemented group was 0.013 higher (0.007 to 0.019) and the predicted probability of revision was 0.015 lower (0.012 to 0.017). In multivariable analyses restricted to men, there was a higher mortality rate in the cemented group and the uncemented group compared with the Birmingham hip resurfacing group. In terms of revision, the Birmingham hip resurfacings had a similar revision rate to uncemented total hip replacements. Both uncemented total hip replacements and Birmingham hip resurfacings had a higher revision rate than cemented total hip replacements. CONCLUSIONS: There is a small but significant increased risk of revision with uncemented rather than cemented total hip replacement, and a small but significant increased risk of death with cemented procedures. It is not known whether these are causal relations or caused by residual confounding. Compared with uncemented and cemented total hip replacements, Birmingham hip resurfacing has a significantly lower risk of death in men of all ages. Previously, only adjusted analyses of hip implant revision rates have been used to recommend and justify use of cheaper cemented total hip implants. Our investigations additionally consider mortality rates and suggest a potentially higher mortality rate with cemented total hip replacements, which merits further investigation.

Does cementing the femoral component increase the risk of peri-operative mortality for patients having replacement surgery for a fracture of the neck of femur? Data from the National Hip Fracture Database.

Concerns have been reported to the United Kingdom National Patient Safety Agency, warning that cementing the femoral component during hip replacement surgery for fracture of the proximal femur may increase peri-operative mortality. The National Hip Fracture Database collects demographic and outcome data about patients with a fracture of the proximal femur from over 100 participating hospitals in the United Kingdom. We conducted a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of this dataset to determine whether peri-operative mortality was increased in patients who had undergone either hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement using a cemented femoral component. A total of 16,496 patients from 129 hospitals were included in the analysis, which showed a small but significant adjusted survival benefit associated with cementing (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.96). Other statistically significant variables in predicting death at discharge, listed in order of magnitude of effect, were gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, age, walking accompanied outdoors and arthroplasty. Interaction terms between cementing and these other variables were sequentially added to, but did not improve, the model. This study has not shown an increase in peri-operative mortality as a result of cementing the femoral component in patients requiring hip replacement following fracture of the proximal femur.

Mitigating surgical risk in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for fractures of the proximal femur.

Recently the National Patient Safety Agency in the United Kingdom published a report entitled "Mitigating surgical risk in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for fractures of the proximal femur". A total of 26 deaths had been reported to them when cement was used at hemiarthroplasty between October 2003 and October 2008. This paper considers the evidence for using cement fixation of a hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of hip fractures.