Aims. Cementing in arthroplasty for hip fracture is associated with improved postoperative function, but may have an increased risk of early mortality compared to uncemented fixation. Quantifying this mortality risk is important in providing safe patient care. This study investigated the association between cement use in arthroplasty and mortality at 30 days and one year in patients aged 50 years and over with hip fracture. Methods. This retrospective cohort study used linked data from the Australian Hip Fracture Registry and the National Death Index. Descriptive analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves tested the unadjusted association of mortality between cemented and uncemented procedures. Multilevel logistic regression, adjusted for covariates, tested the association between cement use and 30-day mortality following arthroplasty. Given the known institutional variation in preference for cemented fixation, an instrumental variable analysis was also performed to minimize the effect of unknown confounders. Adjusted Cox modelling analyzed the association between cement use and mortality at 30 days and one year following surgery. Results. The 30-day mortality was 6.9% for cemented and 4.9% for uncemented groups (p = 0.003). Cement use was significantly associated with 30-day mortality in the Kaplan-Meier survival curve (p = 0.003). After adjusting for covariates, no significant association between cement use and 30-day mortality was shown in the adjusted multilevel logistic regression (odd rati0 (OR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 1.5; p = 0.366), or in the instrumental variable analysis (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.0, p=0.524). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality within 30days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.9, 95% CI 0.7to 1.1; p = 0.355) or one year (HR 0.9 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1; p = 0.328) in the Cox modelling. Conclusion. No statistically significant difference in patient mortality with cement use in arthroplasty was demonstrated in this population, once adjusted for covariates. This study concludes that cementing in arthroplasty for hip fracture is a safe means of surgical fixation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):198–204

Aims. Highly polished stems with force-closed design have shown satisfactory clinical results despite being related to relatively high early migration. It has been suggested that the minimal thickness of cement mantles surrounding the femoral stem should be 2 mm to 4 mm to avoid aseptic loosening. The line-to-line cementing technique of the femoral stem, designed to achieve stem press-fit, challenges this opinion. We compared the migration of a highly polished stem with force-closed design by standard and line-to-line cementing to investigate whether differences in early migration of the stems occur in a clinical study. Methods. In this single-blind, randomized controlled, clinical radiostereometric analysis (RSA) study, the migration pattern of the cemented Corail hip stem was compared between line-to-line and standard cementing in 48 arthroplasties. The primary outcome measure was femoral stem migration in terms of rotation and translation around and along with the X-, Y-, and Z- axes measured using model-based RSA at three, 12, and 24 months. A linear mixed-effects model was used for statistical analysis. Results. Results from mixed model analyses revealed a lower mean retroversion for line-to-line (0.72° (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38° to 1.07°; p < 0.001), but no significant differences in subsidence between the techniques (-0.15 mm (95% CI -0.53 to 0.227; p = 0.429) at 24 months. Radiolucent lines measuring < 2 mm wide were found in three and five arthroplasties cemented by the standard and line-to-line method, respectively. Conclusion. The cemented Corail stem with a force-closed design seems to settle earlier and better with the line-to-line cementing method, although for subsidence the difference was not significant. However, the lower rate of migration into retroversion may reduce the wear and cement deformation, contributing to good long-term fixation and implant survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):19–26