Abstract
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.
