Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cemented and Uncemented Total Hip Replacements
Rolfson, O., Donahue, G. S., Hallsten, M., Garellick, G., Kärrholm, J., & Nemes, S. (2016).Hip
Introduction
Data from national registries have favored the use of cemented fixation in total hip replacement (THR) while other reports show no significant differences in implant survival between cemented and uncemented fixation using modern implants. It is important to investigate whether the method of fixation itself may affect patient-reported outcomes. Hence, this study sought to analyse if patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) differ depending on the type of fixation.
Methods
Data was used from the follow-up programme of the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register which comprises the EQ-5D, a visual analogue scale (VAS) on hip pain, as well as a VAS addressing satisfaction with the outcome of the hip replacement.
3,118 patients with uncemented THR due to primary osteoarthritis performed from 2002 to 2011 with complete 1-year follow-up were included in the study. A control group of patients with cemented THR (n = 3,118) were selected by matching on age, gender, Charnley class, and pre-operative health-related quality of life.
Results
After adjusting for age, gender, Charnley class, and baseline PROMs, multivariate linear regression analyses showed that uncemented fixation is associated with a larger improvement in EQ-5D index (B = 0.03, 95% CI 0.019, 0.041), EQ VAS (B = 2.58, 95% CI 1.65, 3.51), greater pain relief (B = -2.68, 95% CI -3.54, -1.82) and superior patient satisfaction (B = -2.56, 95% CI -3.52, -1.60) (all p<0.001).
Discussions
This study demonstrates that uncemented fixation is associated with better patient-reported outcomes. Factors unrelated to implant fixation, such as performance or selection bias, may also contribute to the difference.
Link to article