Abstract
The clinical success of THA is accepted, however wide variation in implant usage and outcomes is reported across the world. The Getting It Right First Time initiative in the UK has recommended increased use of cemented constructs in patients over 70. A clear clinical directive has been proposed aiming to reduce revision rates, improve outcomes and increase cost effectiveness.
This study compares the outcomes of cemented, hybrid and cementless THA from a high-volume single center at long-term follow-up.
A prospective database identified 1,699 cemented, 5,782 hybrid and 2,631 cementless THAs. Mean follow-up was 8.1 years, 5.3 years and 6.3 years respectively. Primary endpoint was revision for any reason.
47 (1.79%) cemented, 93 (1.60%) hybrid and 39 (1.48%) cementless THAs underwent revision. The difference in overall revision rate was statistically significant (P=0.002). Mean time to revision was 4.5 years in the cemented group, 2.1 years in the hybrid group and 2.6 years in the cementless group.
1 year survivorship was 99.2% in the cemented group, 99.0% in the hybrid group and 98.9% in the cementless group. 3 year survivorship was 98.6% in the cemented group, 98.8% in the hybrid group and 98.9% in the cementless group. At 10 years it was 97.0%, 97.6% and 97.9% respectively. (Difference not statistically significant (p=0.09). Of relevance cemented fixation showed the lowest 10-year survivorship in patients over 70, over 75 and over 80. (not statistically significant P=0.5, 0.6 and 0.47 respectively).
In a high-volume center, excellent outcomes were achieved at 10 years with all three constructs. Cemented THA had the lowest survivorship compared to hybrid, then cementless fixation. Cemented fixation did not outperform cementless fixation in any age group. Surgeons should monitor their outcomes. Use of a philosophy that works best in their own hands should be supported.
