Long-term outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Michael Axenhus, Ghazi Chammout, Paula Kelly-Pettersson, Sebastian Mukka, Martin Magnéli, Olof Sköldenberg
{"title":"Long-term outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.","authors":"Michael Axenhus, Ghazi Chammout, Paula Kelly-Pettersson, Sebastian Mukka, Martin Magnéli, Olof Sköldenberg","doi":"10.1007/s00068-024-02735-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Total hip replacement (THR) is commonly used for active and lucid elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF). Historically, cemented stems have been favoured, demonstrating superior early outcomes. Controversy still exists regarding the use of cemented or uncemented stems in the most active group of patients with FNF and there is a need for extended follow-up studies to assess long-term outcome of cemented and uncemented stem results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 4 and 10-year follow-up was conducted on a single-centre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 65-79 years with an acute displaced FNF (Garden III-IV) were included, and surgeries were performed between 2009 and 2014. The study was terminated after an interim analysis indicated that the total number of early hip-related complications was substantially higher in the uncemented group. Baseline and follow-up assessments included hip-related complications, reoperations, health-related quality of life scores, Harris hip score and pain ratings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 69 patients were randomized. At 4 years, there were 8 complications in the uncemented group and 2 complications in the cemented groups. The uncemented group had several periprosthetic fractures and dislocations necessitating revisions in several cases. From 4 to 10 years, the cemented group showed a single periprosthetic fracture, while none occurred in the uncemented group. The total number of complications during the study period were 8 in the uncemented group and 3 in the cemented group. The median Harris hip score for the uncemented group remained consistent at 81 for both the 4- and 10-year follow-ups. In contrast, the cemented group showed scores of 92 and 93 at the respective 4- and 10-year follow-ups, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Health-related quality of life and pain ratings were similar between groups throughout the study.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study presents a 10-year follow-up of uncemented femoral stems in THR for elderly FNF patients. Our findings not only underscore the importance of cautious decision-making in selecting patients for uncemented implants, but also highlight that most patients suitable for THR would benefit from a cemented arthroplasty to avoid an increased risk of short-term complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":12064,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","volume":"51 1","pages":"73"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02735-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Total hip replacement (THR) is commonly used for active and lucid elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF). Historically, cemented stems have been favoured, demonstrating superior early outcomes. Controversy still exists regarding the use of cemented or uncemented stems in the most active group of patients with FNF and there is a need for extended follow-up studies to assess long-term outcome of cemented and uncemented stem results.

Methods: A 4 and 10-year follow-up was conducted on a single-centre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 65-79 years with an acute displaced FNF (Garden III-IV) were included, and surgeries were performed between 2009 and 2014. The study was terminated after an interim analysis indicated that the total number of early hip-related complications was substantially higher in the uncemented group. Baseline and follow-up assessments included hip-related complications, reoperations, health-related quality of life scores, Harris hip score and pain ratings.

Results: In total, 69 patients were randomized. At 4 years, there were 8 complications in the uncemented group and 2 complications in the cemented groups. The uncemented group had several periprosthetic fractures and dislocations necessitating revisions in several cases. From 4 to 10 years, the cemented group showed a single periprosthetic fracture, while none occurred in the uncemented group. The total number of complications during the study period were 8 in the uncemented group and 3 in the cemented group. The median Harris hip score for the uncemented group remained consistent at 81 for both the 4- and 10-year follow-ups. In contrast, the cemented group showed scores of 92 and 93 at the respective 4- and 10-year follow-ups, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Health-related quality of life and pain ratings were similar between groups throughout the study.

Conclusion: Our study presents a 10-year follow-up of uncemented femoral stems in THR for elderly FNF patients. Our findings not only underscore the importance of cautious decision-making in selecting patients for uncemented implants, but also highlight that most patients suitable for THR would benefit from a cemented arthroplasty to avoid an increased risk of short-term complications.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
311
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery aims to open an interdisciplinary forum that allows for the scientific exchange between basic and clinical science related to pathophysiology, diagnostics and treatment of traumatized patients. The journal covers all aspects of clinical management, operative treatment and related research of traumatic injuries. Clinical and experimental papers on issues relevant for the improvement of trauma care are published. Reviews, original articles, short communications and letters allow the appropriate presentation of major and minor topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信