Rocha Alexandra C, Somerville Lyndsay E, Moody Patrick W, Lanting Brent A, Howard James L, Naudie Doug D R, McCalden Richard W, MacDonald Steven J, Vasarhelyi Edward M
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London Health Sciences Centre - University Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada.
Tennessee Orthopaedic Alliance, Oakridge Physicians Plaza, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
J Arthroplasty. 2025 Aug;40(8S1):S250-S254. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.02.008. Epub 2025 Feb 17.
Controversy exists regarding the most appropriate femoral implant selection in older patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Our study aimed to compare the survivorship, reasons for revision, and patient-reported outcome measures of uncemented versus cemented THA in patients aged ≥ 70 years.
This retrospective study reviewed primary THAs performed on patients aged ≥ 70 years between January 1, 2007, and October 1, 2019. A total of 2,136 patients [cemented (n = 355), cementless (n = 1,781)] were included. Demographics including age in years (77 versus 83), body mass index (29 versus 26), and sex (59 versus 83% women) were different between the cementless and cemented THA cohorts, respectively. Patient characteristics, implant characteristics, revision information, mortality, and patient-reported outcome measures [Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, Veterans Rand 12 Item Health Survey (VR12), and the Harris Hip Score were collected. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was performed with all-cause, aseptic, and aseptic stem revisions as the endpoint. Change scores were calculated and compared with independent t-tests.
There were no differences in the 5- and 10-year cumulative survival in the cementless and cemented THA cohorts for all-cause (P = 0.11), aseptic (P = 0.83), and aseptic stem revisions (P = 0.61). Both cohorts demonstrated excellent long-term survival for all-cause (96.8 versus 95.5), aseptic (97.8 versus 98.3), and aseptic stem (98.4 versus 98.3) revisions. There were no differences in change scores for Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (33.9 versus 35.3, P = 0.48), VR12 mental (0.56 versus 1.42, P = 0.58), VR12 physical (8.9 versus 8.0, P = 0.21), and Harris Hip (43.1 versus 44.9, P = 0.25) scores between the cementless and cemented cohorts at the latest follow-up.
No difference was found in survival rates of cementless compared to cemented stems for all causes and aseptic causes in patients aged ≥ 70 years undergoing elective THA. Both cementless and cemented femoral stems provide a safe and efficacious option for performing THA in older patients.
在接受全髋关节置换术(THA)的老年患者中,关于最合适的股骨植入物选择存在争议。我们的研究旨在比较年龄≥70岁患者中,非骨水泥型与骨水泥型THA的生存率、翻修原因以及患者报告的结局指标。
这项回顾性研究回顾了2007年1月1日至2019年10月1日期间为年龄≥70岁患者进行的初次THA。共纳入2136例患者[骨水泥型(n = 355),非骨水泥型(n = 1781)]。非骨水泥型和骨水泥型THA队列的人口统计学特征分别有所不同,包括年龄(77岁对83岁)、体重指数(29对26)和性别(女性分别为59%对83%)。收集了患者特征、植入物特征、翻修信息、死亡率以及患者报告的结局指标[西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数、退伍军人兰德12项健康调查(VR12)以及Harris髋关节评分]。以全因、无菌和无菌柄翻修为终点进行Kaplan-Meier生存分析。计算变化分数并通过独立t检验进行比较。
在全因(P = 0.11)、无菌(P = 0.83)和无菌柄翻修(P = 0.61)方面,非骨水泥型和骨水泥型THA队列的5年和10年累积生存率没有差异。两个队列在全因(96.8对95.5)、无菌(97.8对98.3)和无菌柄(98.4对98.3)翻修方面均显示出优异的长期生存率。在最新随访时,非骨水泥型和骨水泥型队列之间的西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数变化分数(33.9对35.3,P = 0.48)、VR12精神(0.56对1.42,P = 0.58)、VR12身体(8.9对8.0,P = 0.21)和Harris髋关节(43.1对44.9,P = 0.25)评分没有差异。
在年龄≥70岁接受择期THA的患者中,非骨水泥柄与骨水泥柄的全因和无菌原因生存率没有差异。非骨水泥型和骨水泥型股骨干为老年患者进行THA提供了安全有效的选择。