Similar revision rate after cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 1,879 revision hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

• Published in: Acta orthopaedica Vol. 94; pp. 260 - 265
• Main Authors: Van Dooren, Bart, Peters, Rinne M, Jutte, Paul C, Stevens, Martin, Schreurs, B Willem, Zijlstra, Wierd P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Sweden Medical Journals Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation 22-05-2023; Medical Journals Sweden
• Subjects: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Femoral Fractures; Femur; Hip; Humans; Periprosthetic fracture; Periprosthetic Fractures; re-revision; Registries; total hip arthroplasty; Vancouver B2; Vancouver B3
• ISSN: 1745-3674; 1745-3682
• DOI: 10.2340/17453674.2023.13211

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a serious complication, as it often is followed by functional deficits and morbidity. There is no consensus regarding the optimal stem fixation method and whether additional cup replacement is beneficial. The aim of our study was to perform a direct comparison of reasons and risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision THAs following PPF using registry data.
1,879 patients registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI) who underwent a first-time revision for PPF between 2007 and 2021 (cemented stem: n = 555; uncemented stem: n = 1,324) were included. Competing risk survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed.
5- and 10-year crude cumulative incidence of re-revision following revision for PPF was similar between cemented (resp. 13%, 95% CI 10-16 and 18%, CI 13-24) and uncemented (resp. 11%, CI 10-13 and 13%, CI 11-16) revisions. Multivariable Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders, showed a similar risk of revision for uncemented and cemented revision stems. Finally, we found no difference in risk of re-revision between a total revision (HR 1.2, 0.6-2.1) compared with a stem revision.
We found no difference in the risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision stems after revision for PPF.