Still no single gold standard for using cementless femoral stems routinely in total hip arthroplasty

• Published in: Arthroplasty today Vol. 2; no. 4; pp. 211 - 218
• Main Authors: Moskal, Joseph T., MD, Capps, Susan G., PhD, Scanelli, John A., MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-12-2016; Elsevier
• Subjects: Arthroplasty; Cement; Femoral stems; Hip; Orthopedics; Systematic Review; Uncemented; Femoral stems; Arthroplasty; Therapeutic Level III; Hip; Cement; Uncemented
• ISSN: 2352-3441; 2352-3441
• DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2016.02.001

Abstract Background There is now a clear trend with increased usage of cementless femoral stems for all ages and most patients. As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed annually continues to increase with expanding indications for THA and demands for improved quality of life, so will the prevalence of THA in the elderly and aging populations. This is worrisome as the risk of complications with cementless femoral stems increases in elderly patients and those with poor bone quality. The purpose of this study is to analyze the available data from comparative studies to determine whether cementless femoral stems are overused and whether cemented stems warrant increased consideration. Methods Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, searches were performed to find original studies comparing cementless and cemented femoral stems; large population registry studies and reports were also included. Results This systematic review documents that older patients with cementless fixation increase the risk of revision, there is no clear fixation advantage in midaged patients, and younger patients fare better with cementless fixation. Complications after THA create burdens on the health care system and on patients. Conclusions Using evidence-based data should be better guidance in selecting the most reliable implants for THA. Although cementless femoral fixation for THA has evolved to the “new standard,” it has not been proven to be the “gold standard” for all patients.