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. 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

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

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