2,483
Views
53
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Register studies, hip and knee

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

A Finnish database study of 25,174 patients

, , , &
Pages 49-53 | Received 29 Apr 2013, Accepted 22 Oct 2013, Published online: 07 Jan 2014
 

Abstract

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.

TY planned the study, analyzed the results, and wrote the manuscript. RS planned the study, performed the statistical analyses, and revised the final manuscript. MH and PV took part in analyzing the results and revising the final manuscript. HK took part in planning the study, in analyzing the results, and in revising the final manuscript.

We thank Professor Unto Häkkinen (of the CHESS unit, Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare) for the use of PERFECT data in our study.

No competing interests declared.