Aims. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the mortality, morbidity, and functional outcomes of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of intracapsular hip fractures, analyzing contemporary and non-contemporary implants separately. Methods. PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched to 2 February 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the primary outcome, mortality, and secondary outcomes of function, quality of life, reoperation, postoperative complications, perioperative outcomes, pain, and length of hospital stay. Relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) were used as summary association measures. Results. A total of 18 studies corresponding to 16 non-overlapping RCTs with a total of 2,819 intracapsular hip fractures were included. Comparing contemporary cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty, RRs (95% CIs) for mortality were 1.32 (0.44 to 3.99) perioperatively, 1.01 (0.48 to 2.10) at 30 days, and 0.90 (0.71 to 1.15) at one year. The use of contemporary cemented hemiarthroplasty reduced the risk of intra- and postoperative periprosthetic fracture. There were no significant differences in the risk of other complications, function, pain, and quality of life. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes except for increases in operating time and overall anaesthesia for contemporary cemented hemiarthroplasty with mean differences (95% CIs) of 6.67 (2.65 to 10.68) and 4.90 (2.02 to 7.78) minutes, respectively. The morbidity and mortality outcomes were not significantly different between non-contemporary cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Conclusion. There are no differences in the risk of mortality when comparing the use of contemporary cemented with uncemented hemiarthroplasty in the management of intracapsular hip fractures. Contemporary cemented hemiarthroplasty is associated with a substantially lower risk of intraoperative and periprosthetic fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1113–1121

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the association of mortality and reoperation when comparing cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) in hip fracture patients aged over 65 years. Methods. This was a population-based cohort study on hip fracture patients using prospectively gathered data from several national registries in Denmark from 2004 to 2015 with up to five years follow-up. The primary outcome was mortality and the secondary outcome was reoperation. Hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality and subdistributional hazard ratios (sHRs) for reoperations are shown with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. A total of 17,671 patients with primary HA were identified (9,484 uncemented and 8,187 cemented HAs). Compared to uncemented HA, surgery with cemented HA was associated with an absolute risk difference of 0.4% for mortality within the period zero to one day after surgery and an adjusted HR of 1.70 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.38). After seven days, there was no longer any association, with an adjusted HR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.28). This continued until five years after surgery with a HR of 1.01 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.06). There was a higher proportion of reoperations due to any reason after five years in the uncemented group with 10.2% compared to the cemented group with 6.1%. This yielded an adjusted sHR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.75) and difference continued up until five years after the surgery, demonstrating a sHR of 0.70 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.83). Conclusion. In a non-selected cohort of hip fracture patients, surgery with cemented HA was associated with a higher relative mortality during the first postoperative day compared to surgery with uncemented HA, but there was no difference after seven days up until five years after. In contrast, surgery with cemented HA was associated with lower risk of reoperation up to five years postoperatively compared with surgery with uncemented HA. There was a higher relative mortality on the first postoperative day for cemented HA versus uncemented HA. There was no difference in mortality after seven days up until five years after surgery. There were 6.1% reoperations for cemented HA compared to 10.2% for uncemented HA after five years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):127–133

Aims. The aim of this investigation was to compare risk of infection in both cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) as well as in total hip arthroplasty (THA) following femoral neck fracture. Methods. Data collection was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). In HA and THA following femoral neck fracture, fixation method was divided into cemented and uncemented prostheses and paired according to age, sex, BMI, and the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index using Mahalanobis distance matching. Results. Overall in 13,612 cases of intracapsular femoral neck fracture, 9,110 (66.9%) HAs and 4,502 (33.1%) THAs were analyzed. Infection rate in HA was significantly reduced in cases with use of antibiotic-loaded cement compared with uncemented fixated prosthesis (p = 0.013). In patients with THA no statistical difference between cemented and uncemented prosthesis was registered, however after one year 2.4% of infections were detected in uncemented and 2.1% in cemented THA. In the subpopulation of HA after one year, 1.9% of infections were registered in cemented and 2.8% in uncemented HA. BMI (p = 0.001) and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (p < 0.003) were identified as risk factors of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), while in THA cemented prosthesis also demonstrated an increased risk within the first 30 days (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.73; p = 0.010). Conclusion. The rate of infection after intracapsular femoral neck fracture was statistically significantly reduced in patients treated by antibiotic-loaded cemented HA. Particularly for patients with multiple risk factors for the development of a PJI, the usage of antibiotic-loaded bone cement seems to be a reasonable procedure for prevention of infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):331–338

We performed transoesophageal echocardiography on 20 patients with femoral neck fractures randomly treated with an uncemented Austin-Moore or cemented Hastings hemiarthroplasty. Cemented arthroplasty caused greater and more prolonged embolic cascades than did uncemented arthroplasty. Some emboli were more than 3 cm in length. In some patients the cascades were associated with pulmonary hypertension, diminished oxygen tension and saturation, and the presence of fat and marrow in aspirates from the right atrium.

Current evidence suggests that we should be moving away from Thompson's hemiarthroplasties for patients with intracapsular hip fractures. Furthermore, the use of cement when inserting these prostheses is controversial. This study aims to show the Inverness experience.

We performed a retrospective review of all NHS Highland patients who underwent a hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular neck of femur fracture over the last 15 years. Demographics and the use of cement were documented. Further analysis of this group was performed to identify any of these patients who required revision of their prosthesis. Patients requiring revision had their case-notes reviewed to identify the cause for further surgery.

From 1996 until present 2221 patients from the Highland area had a hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular neck of femur fracture. 1708 where female (77%) and 513 male (23%). The ages ranged from 28 years to 104 years (mean 80 years, median 81). 2180 of this group had their operations in Raigmore Hospital with the remaining 41 at various centres throughout Scotland. 623 (28%)had a cemented hemiarthroplasty, with the remaining 1578 (72%) having an uncemented Thompson's hemiarthroplasty. The revision rate for the cemented group was 2% (13 of 623 patients). In the uncemented group it was 0.4% (6 of 1578). Reasons from revision included dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, infection and pain.

Current evidence from some joint registers regarding the use of Thompson's hemiarthroplasty in the elderly is discouraging. The use of bone cement in this group with multiple co-morbidities is not without it's risks. Our data suggests that uncemented Thompson's hemiarthroplasties in low demand elderly patients with multiple co-morbidities can yield excellent results with less risk to the patients.

Aim. This paper describes the methods applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty among hip fracture patients in the World Hip Trauma Evaluation Five (WHiTE5) trial. Methods. A within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be conducted at four months postinjury from a health system (National Health Service and personal social services) perspective. Resource use pertaining to healthcare utilization (i.e. inpatient care, physiotherapy, social care, and home adaptations), and utility measures (quality-adjusted life years) will be collected at one and four months (primary outcome endpoint) postinjury; only treatment of complications will be captured at 12 months. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Conclusion. The planned analysis strategy described here records our intent to conduct a within-trial CUA alongside the WHiTE5 trial

Aims. Cemented hemiarthroplasty is an effective form of treatment for most patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip. However, it remains unclear whether there are subgroups of patients who may benefit from the alternative operation of a modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty – the aim of this study was to investigate this issue. Knowledge about the heterogeneity of treatment effects is important for surgeons in order to target operations towards specific subgroups who would benefit the most. Methods. We used causal forest analysis to compare subgroup- and individual-level treatment effects between cemented and modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty in patients aged > 60 years with an intracapsular fracture of the hip, using data from the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) multicentre randomized clinical trial. EuroQol five-dimension index scores were used to measure health-related quality of life at one, four, and 12 months postoperatively. Results. Our analysis revealed a complex landscape of responses to the use of a cemented hemiarthroplasty in the 12 months after surgery. There was heterogeneity of effects with regard to baseline characteristics, including age, pre-injury health status, and lifestyle factors such as alcohol consumption. This heterogeneity was greater at the one-month mark than at subsequent follow-up timepoints, with particular regard to subgroups based on age. However, for all subgroups, the effect estimates for quality of life lay within the confidence intervals derived from the analysis of all patients. Conclusion. The use of a cemented hemiarthroplasty is expected to increase health-related quality of life compared with modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty for all subgroups of patients aged > 60 years with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):656–661

Aim. The aim of this investigation was to compare risk of infection in both cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty (HA) as well as total hip arthroplasty (THA) following femoral neck fracture. Methods. Data collection was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) In HA and THA following femoral neck fracture fixation method was divided into cemented and cementless protheses and paired according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and the Elixhauser score using Mahalanobis distance matching. Results. Overall in 13,612 cases of intracapsular femoral neck fracture, with 9,110 (66.9 %) HAs and 4502 (33.1 %) THAs were analyzed. Infection rate in HA was significantly reduced in cases with use of antibiotic-loaded cement compared to cementless fixated prosthesis (p=0.013). In patients with THA no statistical difference between cemented and cementless prothesis was registered, however after one year 2.4 % of infections were detected in cementless and 2.1 % in cemented THA. In the subpopulation of HA after one year 1.9 % of infections were registered in cemented and 2.8 % in cementless HA. BMI (p=0.001) and Elixhauser-Comorbidity-Score (p<0.003) were identified as risk factors of PJI, while in THA also cemented prosthesis demonstrated within the first 30 days an increased risk (HR=2.728; p=0.010). Conclusion. The rate of infection after intracapsular femoral neck fracture was significantly reduced in patients treated by antibiotic-loaded cemented hemiarthroplasty. In particular for patients with multiple risk factors for the development of a PJI the usage of antibiotic-loaded bone cement seems to be a reasonable procedure for prevention of infection

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Background. In 2011 20% of intracapsular fractured neck of femurs were treated with an uncemented hemiarthroplasty in the English NHS. National guidelines recommend cemented implants, based on evidence of less pain, better mobility and lower costs. We aimed to compare complications following cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty using the national hospital episode statistics (HES) database in England. Methods. Dislocation, revision, return to theatre and medical complications were extracted for all patients with NOF fracture who underwent either cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty between January 2005 and December 2008. To make a ‘like for like’ comparison all 30424 patients with an uncemented impant were matched to 30424 cemented implants (from a total of 42838) in terms of age, sex and Charlson co-morbidity score. Results. In patients with an uncemented implant, 18-month revision (1.62% versus 0.57% (OR 2.90 [2.44–3.45], p< 0.001)), 4-year revision (2.45% vs 1.11% (OR 2.28 [1.45–3.65], p< 0.001)) and 30-day chest infection (8.14% versus 7.23% (OR 1.14 [1.08–1.21], p=0.028)) were significantly higher. Interestingly, 4-year dislocation rate was higher in cemented implants (0.60% versus 0.26% (OR 0.45 [0.36–0.55], p< 0.001). No significant differences were seen in 30-day return to theatre, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event or 90-day pulmonary embolus. Discussion. In this national analysis of matched patients short and medium term revision rate, and perioperative chest infection was significantly higher in the uncemented group. This supports the published evidence and national guidelines recommending cement fixation of hemiarthroplasty

Aims. Debate continues about whether it is better to use a cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty to treat a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip. The aim of this study was to attempt to resolve this issue for contemporary prostheses. Methods. A total of 400 patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip were randomized to receive either a cemented polished tapered stem hemiarthroplasty or an uncemented Furlong hydroxyapatite-coated hemiarthroplasty. Follow-up was conducted by a nurse blinded to the implant at set intervals for up to one year from surgery. Results. A total of 115 patients died in the year after surgery. There was a tendency towards a slightly higher mortality in those treated with the uncemented prosthesis after one year (64 vs 51; p = 0.18). For the survivors, there was no significant difference in pain score at any of the time intervals. Patients treated using the cemented hemiarthroplasty recovered mobility better than those treated with the uncemented hemiarthroplasty (mean decrease in mobility score at one year: 1.7 vs 1.1, SD 1.9; p = 0.008). There was a tendency to more periprosthetic fractures in the uncemented group (five vs two cases; p = 0.45), but overall the need for further surgery was similar in both groups (nine vs seven cases). There were four perioperative deaths in the cemented group. Conclusion. These results indicate that a contemporary cemented hemiarthroplasty gives better results than an uncemented hemiarthroplasty for patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip. When the condition of the patient permits, a cemented hemiarthroplasty should be used. Cite this article: Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(1):11–16

Continued controversy exists between cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular hip fracture. To assist in resolving this controversy, 400 patients were randomised between a cemented polished tapered stem hemiarthroplasty and an uncemented Furlong hydroxyapatite coated hemiarthroplasty. Follow-up was by a nurse blinded to the implant used for up to three years from surgery. Results indicate no difference in the pain scores between implants but a tendency to an improved regain of mobility for those treated with the cemented arthroplasty (1.2 score versus 1.7 at 6 months, p=0.03). There was no difference in early mortality but a tendency to a higher later mortality for the uncemented implants (29% versus 24% at one year, p=0.3). Later peri-prosthetic fracture was more common in the uncemented group (3% versus 1.5%). Revision arthroplasty was required for 2% of cemented cases and 3% of uncemented cases. Surgery for an uncemented hemiarthroplasty was 5 minutes shorter but these patients were more likely to need a blood transfusion (14% versus 7%). Three patients in the cemented group had a major adverse reaction to bone cement leading to their death. These results indicated that a cemented stem hemiarthroplasty give marginally improved regain of mobility in comparison to a contemporary uncemented hemiarthroplasty. An uncemented hemiarthroplasty still has a place for those considered to be at a high risk of bone cement implantation syndrome

Introduction. Cemented hemiarthroplasty for neck of femur fractures has been advocated over uncemented hemiarthroplasty due to better post-operative recovery and patient satisfaction. However, studies have shown adverse effects of bone cement on the cardio-respiratory system which may lead to higher morbidity and mortality. Therefore, in some institutes, the use of an uncemented prosthesis has been adopted for patients with a high number of co-morbidities. The aim was to compare early mortality rates for cemented vs. uncemented hemiarthroplasties. Method. Cohort study of displaced intracapsular hip fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty between 1999–2009 at one institute. A total of 3094 hemiarthroplasties performed; out of which 1002(32.4%) were cemented and 2092(67.6%) were uncemented. 48hour and 30day mortality rates for the two groups were compared and a multivariate Cox regression model used to eliminate confounding factors. Significant confounding factor included age, sex, mini mental test score, medical co-morbidities, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and delay to surgery. Results. The study showed that, after eliminating confounding factors, 48hour mortality in the cemented group was 0.3% compared to 0.5% in the uncemented group (p=0.388). However, the adjusted 30day mortality rate for the cemented group (4%) was shown to be significantly lower than for the uncemented group (10.8%) (p< 0.001). Conclusion. The use of cement in hip hemiarthroplasty is not associated with an increased rate of mortality at 48hours or at 30days. Along with emerging evidence of better post-op recovery and patient satisfaction with the use of a cemented prosthesis, we support the use of cement for all patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty

In a prospective, controlled study, we measured the effect on cardiac output of the introduction of methylmethacrylate during hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck. We treated 20 elderly patients who were similar in age, height, weight and preoperative left ventricular function with either cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Using a transoesophageal Doppler probe, we measured cardiac output before incision and at six stages of the procedure: during the surgical approach, reaming and lavage of the femoral canal, the introduction of cement, the insertion of the prosthesis, and in reduction and closure. We found that before the cement was introduced, there was no difference in stroke volume or cardiac output (p > 0.25). Cementation produced a transient but significant reduction in cardiac output of 33% (p < 0.01) and a reduction in stroke volume of 44% (p < 0.02). The introduction of cement did not affect the heart rate or mean arterial pressure. There was no significant difference in cardiac function on insertion of the prosthesis. Standard non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring did not detect the cardiovascular changes which may account for the sudden deaths that sometimes occur during cemented hemiarthroplasty. The fall in stroke volume and cardiac output may be caused by embolism occurring during cementation, but there was no similar fall during reaming or insertion of the prosthesis

Introduction. The treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients is under debate. Hemiarthroplasty is a recognised treatment for elderly patients with reduced capacity for mobilisation. Controversy exists around cemented or uncemented implants for hemiarthroplasty in this population. The aim of this study is to investigate outcomes of cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty implants to two years post operation. Methods. All elderly patients presenting to one institution with a displaced subcapital neck of femur fracture were offered inclusion. One hundred and sixty patients (mean age, 85 years) with acute displaced femoral neck fractures were randomly allocated to be treated with cemented Exeter, or uncemented Zweymüller Alloclassic Hemiarthroplasty. Clinical and radiologic follow-up to two years with the main outcome measurements being pain, mortality, mobility, complications, reoperations, and quality of life using validated scores recorded by a blinded outcome assessor. Results. Complication rates were more frequent in uncemented implants (p< 0.016). Subsidence and perioperative fracture were significantly higher with uncemented components (p< 0.05). Visual analogue pain scores at rest were not significantly different between each group. Mortality rates were not significantly different at any time point. Oxford Hip scores at 6 weeks favoured cemented implants (p< 0.05). These trends persist but are not significant at later follow-up. Mobility measured by a timed up-and-go score favoured cemented at 6 weeks (p< 0.01), 6 months (p< 0.05) and 1 year (p< 0.005). A trend towards less dependence on walking aids also favoured cemented implants. Multifunctional assessment index and Mini-mental scores were similar in each group. Conclusion. Cemented hemiarthroplasty provides a better outcome for elderly patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture when compared with uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Complication rates were significantly lower and function and pain scores were improved at multiple time points following surgery

Purpose: The appropriate means of fixation for hemiarthroplasty of the hip is a matter of ongoing debate. Proponents of uncemented components cite the risk of perioperative mortality with cement implantation as justification for avoiding cement in certain patients. Because cement-related mortality is rare, we wished to compare the incidence of perioperative mortality in patients receiving cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty using a large national database. Further, we wished to compare overall revision rate between fixation methods to assess their role in implant survivorship. Method: All recorded hemiarthroplasty cases from the AOA National Joint Replacement Registry were cross-referenced to the Australian mortality data, and deaths at 1d, 7d, 28d, and one year were compared between groups. Further, subgroup analysis of monoblock, modular, and bipolar hemiarthroplasty were compared as a surrogate measure of different patient populations. Results: Comparing all hemiarthroplasty procedures as a group, there was a a significantly increased mortality rate at day one post-operatively (p = 0.0005) when cement was used. By day 7, this trend reversed, revealing a reduced mortality risk with cement (p = 0.02). This trend reversal persisted at day 28 and one year post-operatively (p = 0.028 & p < 0.0001, respectively). With subgroup analysis, monoblock hemiarthroplasty revealed a similar trend reversal in early versus late mortality. Modular and bipolar hemiarthroplasty procedures failed to reveal a significant difference in mortality when cemented and uncemented components were compared at all time points. When fixation method was compared in different age groups, a favourable mortality rate was seen at one year when cemented monoblock components were used in patients aged 71–80, and in patients ≥81 years old (p = 0.005 & < 0.001, respectively). The opposite was true with cemented modular implants at one year in patients < 70 years old (p = 0.009). There was no significant difference in mortality between cemented and uncemented implants in any other age investigated. Revision rates were significantly higher in patients treated with uncemented hemiarthroplasty regardless of prosthesis type. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a higher overall success rate, and comparable or reduced long-term mortality risk when cement is used in hip hemiarthroplasty

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults.

The August 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Using machine learning to predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events following total joint arthroplasty; Antibiotic length in revision total hip arthroplasty; Preoperative colonization and worse outcomes; Short stem cemented total hip arthroplasty; What are the outcomes of one- versus two-stage revisions in the UK?; To cement or not to cement? The best approach in hemiarthroplasty; Similar re-revisions in cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty; Are hip precautions still needed?