Controversy persists over whether cemented or uncemented fixation is more effective in reducing revision and mortality risks following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite a shift towards uncemented THA in Europe, Australia, and the US, no consensus exists on superior outcomes. This ambiguity in evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies necessitates advanced research methodologies to derive more definitive conclusions.

This study investigates the causal impact of THA fixation type on 2-year and 5-year revision rates, along with 90-day mortality, utilizing a regression discontinuity (RD) design in scenarios where fixation choice is guided by patient age.

Employing data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, we conducted a cohort study on primary THAs for osteoarthritis from 2007 to 2019. A “fuzzy” RD design was executed to compute the Local Average Treatment Effect for subjects around the age-based selection threshold for fixation type. The main outcome of interest was the revision rate at 2 years post-operation.

Analysis for the 2-year revision endpoint, covering any cause, included 2,344 females and 1,671 males across 5 hospitals each, with no significant variation in revision rates observed. For the 5-year mark, 1,058 females in 3 hospitals and 214 males in 1 hospital were examined, similarly showing no significant differences. Mortality within 90 days post-operation was also investigated in 5 female and 7 male cohorts, with 2,180 and 2,145 surgeries respectively, yielding no substantial disparities.

In conclusion, the RD analysis revealed no notable differences in revision rates at 2 and 5 years or in early mortality based on the fixation method used in THA. These outcomes suggest that the age-based preference for THA fixation may not influence the revision or mortality risk, underscoring the value of RD design in deriving causal insights from observational data.

Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) may have bone sparing properties, which could be advantageous in a younger population with high risk of future revision surgery. We used data from the AOANJRR, LROI and SAR to compare survival rates of primary THA, stems used in the first-time revision procedures as well as the overall survival of first-time revisions between a cohort of short-stem and standard-stem THA.

Short-stem THAs (designed as a short stem with mainly metaphyseal fixation) between 2007 and 2021 were identified (n=16,258). A propensity score matched cohort (1:2) with standard THAs in each register was identified (n=32,515). The cohorts were merged into a research dataset. Overall survival at 12 years follow-up was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Stem revisions (short-stem THA n=239, standard-stem THA n=352) were identified. The type of revision stem was classified as standard (<160 mm) or long (>160 mm). The survival rate of all first-time revisions in the two groups was calculated using any type of revision as outcome.

The 12 year- overall survival rate (all revisions, all causes) for primary short-stem THAs was 95.3% (CI 94.5–95.9%), which was comparable to 95.2% (CI 94.7–95.7%) for standard-stem THAs. In the short-stem THA group, a standard stem (<160 mm) was more often (59%) used in the first-time revision than in the standard-stem group (47%, p=0.004). The overall survival of the first-time revisions did not differ between cases primarily operated with a short or a standard stem.

In our multi-national register study, the overall survival rate of short stems was similar to that of standard stems. In short stem revisions there was a higher likelihood of using a standard-length stem for the revision compared with first-time revisions of standard stems. This finding might indicate bone-sparing properties with short-stemmed THAs.