Background: Data assessing femoral stems may be influenced by grouping together matt and polished stems, despite their differing reported survivorship. The aim of this study is to assess the difference in revision rates between commonly used cemented and cementless stems when polished tapered stems are assessed independently of matt stems.
Methods: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data from 1999 to 2019 were used to assess difference in revision rates between the 5 most commonly implanted femoral cemented and cementless stems for osteoarthritis. Cemented matt femoral stems, stems using line-to-line cementing techniques and procedures using non-cross-linked polyethylene, large head (>32 mm) metal-on-metal bearing surfaces or exchangeable necks were excluded. Cumulative percent revision was used to help compare survivorship between stems.
Results: There were 201,889 total hip replacements meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50.0% were cemented and 50.0% cementless. Cemented stems had a lower rate of revision at all time points compared to cementless stems. This was most significant during the first 2 weeks (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.58, P < .001) compared to 2 weeks postoperatively and onwards (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.90, P < .001). A subanalysis of head size, bearing type, and surgeon volume further supported the use of a cemented stem.
Conclusion: Commonly used cemented polished tapered stems have a lower revision rate when compared to commonly used cementless prostheses, and are recommended in all age groups for both low-volume and high-volume surgeons especially when head size 32 mm or smaller is used.
Keywords: arthroplasty; femoral stem; hip; osteoarthritis; prosthesis; revision.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.