Next Article in Journal
Quantification of Microvascular Lesions in the Central Retinal Field: Could It Predict the Severity of Diabetic Retinopathy?
Next Article in Special Issue
Is Modular Dual Mobility Superior to Standard Bearings for Reducing Dislocation Risk after Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Retrospective Comparative Multicenter Study
Previous Article in Journal
Integrative Oncology and the Clinical Care Network: Challenges and Opportunities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/jcm12123945
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cemented versus Cementless Femoral Fixation for Elective Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Analysis of Short-Term Complication and Readmission Rates

by
Xiao T. Chen
1,
Alexander B. Christ
1,
Brian C. Chung
1,
Andy Ton
1,
Alexander M. Ballatori
1,
Shane Shahrestani
1,
Brandon S. Gettleman
2 and
Nathanael D. Heckmann
1,*
1
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 91803, USA
2
University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, SC 29209, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(12), 3945; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123945
Submission received: 25 May 2023 / Revised: 6 June 2023 / Accepted: 8 June 2023 / Published: 9 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Joint Arthroplasty: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Directions)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cementless fixation during total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the predominant mode of fixation utilized for both acetabular and femoral components during elective primary THAs performed in the United States. This study aims to compare early complication and readmission rates between primary THA patients receiving cemented versus cementless femoral fixation. The 2016–2017 National Readmissions Database was queried to identify patients undergoing elective primary THA. Postoperative complication and readmission rates at 30, 90, and 180 days were compared between cemented and cementless cohorts. Univariate analysis was conducted to compare differences between cohorts. Multivariate analysis was performed to account for confounding variables. Of 447,902 patients, 35,226 (7.9%) received cemented femoral fixation, while 412,676 (92.1%) did not. The cemented group was older (70.0 vs. 64.8, p < 0.001), more female (65.0% vs. 54.3%, p < 0.001), and more comorbid (CCI 3.65 vs. 3.22, p < 0.001) compared to the cementless group. On univariate analysis, the cemented cohort had decreased odds of periprosthetic fracture at 30 days postoperatively (OR: 0.556, 95%-CI 0.424–0.729, p < 0.0001), but higher odds of hip dislocation, periprosthetic joint infection, aseptic loosening, wound dehiscence, readmission, medical complications, and death at all timepoints. On multivariate analysis, the cemented fixation cohort demonstrated reduced odds of periprosthetic fracture at all postoperative timepoints: 30 (OR: 0.350, 95%-CI 0.233–0.506, p < 0.0001), 90 (OR: 0.544, 95%-CI 0.400–0.725, p < 0.0001), and 180 days (OR: 0.573, 95%-CI 0.396–0.803, p = 0.002). Cemented femoral fixation was associated with significantly fewer short-term periprosthetic fractures, but more unplanned readmissions, deaths, and postoperative complications compared to cementless femoral fixation in patients undergoing elective THA.

1. Introduction

Several million patients worldwide undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) annually, with over 1.6 million THAs performed among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in 2011 [1]. The annual incidence of THA has dramatically risen over the last decade. In OECD countries, THA rates increased by 30% between 2007–2017 [2]. In the United States, over 456,000 total or partial hip replacements were performed in 2010 [3], while the 2010 prevalence of THA exceeded 2.55 million individuals [4].
The increasing popularity of THA has been accompanied by various implant types and surgical techniques. One topic of ongoing controversy among orthopedic surgeons is the usage of cemented femoral fixation in primary THA. Over 93% of primary THAs within the United States utilize cementless femoral fixation [5,6], yet international registries from Australia, New Zealand, Norway, England, and Sweden demonstrate a preference towards cemented femoral fixation [6]. Previous studies have demonstrated an association between cemented femoral fixation and fewer periprosthetic fractures, lower incidence of thigh pain, decreased odds of revision surgery, versatility in patients with poor bone quality, and superior long-term implant survival in older patients [7,8,9,10]. However, surgeons who prefer cementless femoral fixation argue that cementation is more technically challenging, prolongs operative times, and increases the risk of aseptic loosening in younger, high-demand patients [11]. Support for both modes of femoral fixation are often derived from outdated studies that investigated femoral stems or cementation techniques that have been largely discontinued from mainstream use. Due to the paucity of convincing contemporary data, the usage of cemented femoral fixation in primary elective THA remains highly debated.
Few studies have compared postoperative outcomes or readmissions rates in elective THA patients receiving cemented versus cementless femoral fixation. An observational study by Zimmerman et al. of 271 hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients who underwent primary THA found no statistically significant differences in clinical or functional outcomes between those who received uncemented versus hybrid fixation at 12 months postoperatively [12]. In contrast, studies by Emerson et al. and Corten et al. found superior mid-term (7 years) and long-term (17 years) implant survivorship, respectively, in THA patients receiving cementless femoral fixation [13,14]. In a retrospective cohort study of 4019 patients who underwent cemented versus cementless THA for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), cemented composite-beam stems were found to have consistently higher rates of aseptic loosening than cementless stems, though all-cause revision was comparable at 15 years between groups [15]. Prior studies often report conflicting findings, fail to assess readmissions rates, and lack the statistical power to investigate uncommon complications.
The purpose of this study was to assess individuals who underwent elective THA for common indications such as OA, osteonecrosis, and RA of the hip and compare early complication and readmission rates between patients who received cemented versus cementless femoral fixation. We hypothesize that patients who received cementless femoral fixation will have higher rates of readmission and postoperative complications compared to patients who received cemented femoral fixation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. National Readmission Database

The United States National Readmission Database (NRD) is an all-payer, nationally representative database within the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project that contains data from approximately 18 million inpatient and readmissions records annually. Diagnoses and procedures are coded within each patient admission or readmission using International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes representing data elements such as complications, costs, length of stay, and readmission rates within each calendar year. Data from NRD years before 2016 were excluded, as ICD-9 codes lack the granularity required for this study. This study is exempt from institutional review board approval given that all patient data within the NRD is deidentified.

2.2. Patient Selection

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients within the 2016–2017 NRD who underwent primary elective THA (Table 1). All patients were identified using ICD-10 codes, and patients with diagnosis codes for OA, RA, osteonecrosis of the hip, and hip dysplasia who underwent subsequent cemented or cementless THA were included for analysis. Exclusion criteria were malignancy, septic arthritis of the hip, abnormal weight loss, anorexia nervosa, malnourishment, fracture of the femur, and history of ipsilateral total or partial hip arthroplasty (Table S1). Demographic and patient information was extracted for the respective cemented and cementless THA cohorts, including age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), insurance type, hospital type, income quartile, and discharge location. Unplanned readmission and complications at 30, 90, and 180 days within both cohorts were the primary outcomes of this study. Complications of interest included hip dislocation, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, wound dehiscence, embolism, thrombosis, hemorrhage, hematoma, seroma, death, and medical complications (acute myocardial infarction (MI), pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute renal failure, cerebral infarction, peripheral nerve injury (PNI), postoperative ileus, urinary tract infection (UTI)) (Table S2). The NRD does not track patients past each calendar year, so patients lacking follow-up at each time point were excluded from analysis at that specific time point.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Patient characteristics, preoperative diagnoses, and hospital characteristics were compared between the two cohorts using standard parametric tests. Chi-squared tests were used to compare categorical variables and student’s t-tests were used to compare continuous variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with cemented femoral fixation as the independent variable and cementless femoral fixation as the reference. Age, sex, CCI, preoperative diagnosis, insurance type, median income, hospital type, and discharge location were set as dependent variables. Outcomes analyzed on multivariate analysis included dislocation, PJI, periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, wound dehiscence, postoperative hematoma, postoperative seroma, combined medical complications, readmissions, and death at 30, 90, and 180 days postoperatively. All statistical analyses were performed using R studio (RStudio, Boston, MA, USA). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

A total of 884,184 patients who underwent elective THA were initially queried and screened for inclusion. After exclusion criteria were applied, 713,116 patients remained. Of these, 447,902 had ICD-10 codes specifying for cemented or cementless THA. Cemented femoral fixation was performed in 35,226 patients (7.86%), whereas cementless femoral fixation was performed in 412,676 patients (92.14%). The cemented cohort was significantly older (70.0 years vs. 64.8 years, p < 0.001), and had more comorbidities (CCI: 3.65 vs. 3.22, p < 0.001) and females (65.0% vs. 54.3%, p < 0.001) compared to the cementless group. (Table 1).

3.1. Readmissions

On univariate analysis, readmission rates were significantly higher in the cemented group at 30 (5.26% vs. 3.43%; p < 0.0001), 90 (11.4% vs. 7.79%; p < 0.0001), and 180 days (18.3% vs. 13.5%; p < 0.0001). (Table 2).
After accounting for confounders, multivariate analysis continued to demonstrate higher readmission rates in the cemented cohort at 30 (OR: 1.246, 95%-CI 1.157–1.341, p < 0.0001), 90 (OR: 1.371, 95%-CI 1.295–1.451, p < 0.0001), and 180 days (OR: 1.316, 95%-CI 1.243–1.392, p < 0.0001) postoperatively. (Figure 1A–C, Table 3).

3.2. Medical Complications

Complication rates within 30, 90, and 180 days postoperatively were assessed for both the cemented and cementless THA cohorts. At all three postoperative timepoints, patients who underwent cemented femoral fixation had significantly greater odds of acute MI, pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute renal failure, cerebral infarction, UTI, death, and any medical complication (all p-values < 0.001). (Table 2) At 90 days postoperatively, the cemented femoral fixation cohort also had significantly higher odds of PNI (OR: 2.018, 95%-CI 1.063–3.832, p = 0.048) and postoperative ileus (OR: 1.897, 95%-CI 1.339–2.687, p = 0.0002). (Table 2B) Multivariate analysis continued to show that patients who underwent cemented femoral fixation were at greater odds of all medical complications (30 days: OR: 1.209, 95%-CI 1.034–1.411, p = 0.0169; 90 days: OR: 1.25, 95%-CI 1.105–1.413, p = 0.0004; 180 days: OR: 1.280, 95%-CI 1.132–1.444, p < 0.0001) and death (30 days: OR: 1.854, 95%-CI 1.135–2.892, p = 0.0093; 90 days: OR: 1.852, 95%-CI 1.302–2.575, p = 0.00039; 180 days: OR: 1.633, 95%-CI 1.111–2.327, p = 0.0091) at all three timepoints. (Figure 1A–C, Table 3).

3.3. Surgical Complications

On univariate analysis, the cemented cohort demonstrated reduced odds of periprosthetic fracture at 30 days (OR: 0.556, 95%-CI 0.424 to 0.729, p < 0.0001), but not at 90 (OR: 0.875, 95%-CI 0.707 to 1.08, p = 0.221) or 180 days (OR: 0.919, 95%-CI 0.715 to 1.182, p = 0.510). However, at 30, 90, and 180 days postoperatively, patients with cemented THAs were also more likely to experience hip dislocation, PJI, aseptic loosening, and wound dehiscence (all p-values < 0.001) (Table 2). After accounting for confounding factors, the cemented fixation cohort demonstrated reduced odds of periprosthetic fracture at all postoperative time points: 30 (OR: 0.350, 95%-CI 0.233–0.506, p < 0.0001), 90 (OR: 0.544, 95%-CI 0.400–0.725, p < 0.0001), and 180 days (OR: 0.573, 95%-CI 0.396–0.803, p = 0.002). (Figure 1A–C, Table 3) No other surgical complications were found to be significantly different between the two cohorts at 30 days postoperatively. However, cemented THAs had greater odds of hip dislocation at 90 days (OR: 1.232, 95%-CI 1.011–1.492, p = 0.036) and PJI at 90 (OR: 1.354, 95%-CI 1.128–1.618, p = 0.001) and 180 days (OR: 1.644, 95%-CI 1.349–1.992, p < 0.0001) (Figure 1B,C, Table 3).

4. Discussion

The present study found a decreased risk of periprosthetic fracture, but increased risk of readmission, death, and postoperative complications for elective THA patients receiving cemented femoral fixation compared to cementless femoral fixation. Elective THA patients who received cemented femoral fixation were older, more comorbid, and more likely to be female compared to those who received cementless THAs. Univariate analysis demonstrated significantly lower odds of periprosthetic fracture at 30 days postoperatively but not at 90 or 180 days in the cemented THA cohort. These same patients had greater odds of readmission, hip dislocation, PJI, aseptic loosening, medical complications, and death at all three time points. However, after accounting for confounding factors, patients undergoing cemented femoral fixation were found to have significantly reduced odds of periprosthetic fracture at 30, 90 and 180 days, though they continued to exhibit greater odds of readmission, death, and medical complications at all time points.
Unplanned hospital readmission following primary THA has become an important quality-of-care metric over the past decade with the introduction of the 2012 U.S. Center for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, 2012 CMS Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), and 2016 Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) reimbursement model. These policies have been shifting reimbursement from the traditional fee-for-service model towards bundled payments, [16] with multiple studies demonstrating that unplanned readmissions in total joint arthroplasty cases are associated with substantially increased costs of care and major reductions in hospital reimbursement [17,18,19,20,21,22]. The BCPI utilizes a 90-day bundle, the HRRP uses a 30-day benchmark, and the CJR has both 30- and 90-day metrics, making 30 and 90 days critical postoperative timepoints. This study found similar 30-day readmission rates for patients who underwent cementless THAs (3.43%) to those reported by Mednick et al. [23] (3.65%) and Paxton et al. [24] (3.6%). Additionally, the pooled readmissions rate of both cohorts at 90 days (8.0%) was similar to that of Ramkumar et al., who found a 7.7% unplanned readmissions rate following primary elective unilateral THAs [25]. In the present study, readmission rates were significantly higher at all three time points in the cemented femoral fixation cohort on both univariate and multivariate analysis. However, cemented femoral fixation itself is unlikely to be the root cause of increased short-term readmission rates, and there are likely uncontrolled confounders within the older and more comorbid cemented THA cohort. Future studies are needed to further parse out the exact risk factors for readmission in this particular subset of THA patients.
The incidence of postoperative surgical complications varied enormously between cohorts in this study, with advantages and disadvantages for each type of fixation. Patients who received cementless THAs were 1.8–2.9 times more likely to experience a periprosthetic fracture on multivariate analysis, a finding that has been well-described in prior literature. Berry found a periprosthetic fracture rate of 5.4% in cementless THAs (versus 0.3% in cemented THAs) within the Mayo Clinic Total Joint Registry, while Springer et al. used the American Joint Replacement Registry and reported a 2.6-times higher periprosthetic fracture rate within 90 days postoperatively in THA patients who received cementless femoral stems versus cemented femoral stems [26,27]. However, THA patients in this study who underwent cemented femoral fixation were 1.2–1.6 times more likely to experience PJI, hip dislocation, or aseptic loosening compared to THA patients who received cementless femoral stems. These findings mirror those of Yoon et al., which found 1.53-times increased odds of PJI in cemented THAs compared to cementless [28].
It is unlikely that cementation itself is a risk for PJI, and differences are more likely related to selection bias as many surgeons in the United States preferentially utilize cemented fixation in frail, elderly, sicker patients. The increased PJI that persisted in our multivariate analysis is likely the result of unidentified confounders contributing to this finding, considering the large comorbid burden of the cemented THA cohort. Prior studies have also reported greater rates of osteolysis and aseptic loosening in cemented femoral stems, often leading to revision surgery [29,30]. Kurtz et al. found that 59% of total readmission costs following THA within 90 days were associated with complications requiring operative management such as PJI, hip dislocation, and periprosthetic fractures [31]. Further prospective studies are needed to account for surgeon selection bias in order to account for both identifiable and unidentifiable confounders.
This study also found cemented femoral fixation to be associated with increased rates of dislocation at 90 days postoperatively on multivariate analysis. However, this group was also older, sicker, and had more female patients than the cementless group. Female gender, increasing age, and conditions associated with increasing age, such as spinal fusion and Parkinson’s disease, have been shown to increase the risk of dislocation [32]. Although several of these variables are unaccounted for in the Charlson comorbidity index, the overall effects of surgeon selection bias choosing cemented fixation in more frail patients may not be fully captured by the CCI. Additionally, it can be hypothesized that by using cemented femoral fixation, surgeons are identifying patients with osteopenia and other comorbid conditions. These patients may be at higher risk for any number of complications, and their degree of frailty may not be adequately captured by an administrative coding database.
This study has several limitations. First, the use of retrospective data from the NRD in this study introduces selection bias related to surgeon preference for cementing femoral components in patients who are older, more comorbid, and have poorer bone stock. This is particularly true using a United States nationwide sample, given the widespread utilization of cementless femoral fixation as the preferred mode of femoral fixation. However, we attempted to mitigate these confounding factors by using a multivariate model accounting for age, sex, and comorbidity burden. Despite our multivariate model, there are likely unaccounted-for confounders driving the increased risk of postoperative complications observed in the cemented cohort. Second, as with any administrative database study, the quality of our data depends on the accuracy of ICD-10 coding. However, we do not think that these inaccuracies affected our results, as there is no evidence that these types of inaccuracies would be more prevalent in one of the two comparative cohorts in this study. Third, the NRD aggregates data from 28 states, representing approximately 60% of the US population, which may limit the generalizability of findings from this study to specific geographic regions. Fourth, the NRD does not compile patient-reported outcomes such as pre- and postoperative pain and function, intraoperative variables such as blood loss and operative time, preoperative radiographic findings, or surgeon characteristics such as years of experience, fixation preference, and surgical volume. Fifth, our study only analyzed patients between 2016–2017, with no follow-up past 1 year. However, this time frame was chosen because the ICD-10 codes implemented at the end of 2015 specified the mode of femoral fixation, whereas the prior ICD-9 codes lacked such granularity. Sixth, multiple preoperative diagnoses were permitted for the elective THAs queried in this study. This decision was in accordance with the majority of prior randomized controlled trials [10,33,34] that included elective THAs for multiple different diagnoses, so the results in this study may be more broadly generalizable but not specific to any particular pathology. Finally, this study was unable to account for implant type, cementation technique, and surgical approach. Factors such as implant geometry, materials, surface finishes, and bearings may have introduced heterogeneity into our findings. While we acknowledge our inability to identify specific implants is a weakness of our study, we do not believe it diminishes our findings in any meaningful way.
To our knowledge, this is the first and largest national database study to analyze the relationship between femoral fixation type, unplanned readmissions, and postoperative complications following primary elective THA. The usage of new ICD-10 codes allowed for a granular and contemporary analysis of femoral fixation that was not previously possible using ICD-9 documentation. The novel findings within this study provide orthopedic surgeons with additional information regarding the different risks associated with each type of femoral fixation in primary elective THA patients. Future studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes and appropriate indications for each fixation type.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study used a large, nationally representative database to assess postoperative complication and readmission rates in patients undergoing primary elective THA with either cemented or cementless femoral fixation. After accounting for confounding factors, THA patients who received cemented femoral stems demonstrated significantly lower odds of periprosthetic fracture, but greater incidence of unplanned readmission, PJI, hip dislocation, aseptic loosening, death, and medical complications. Arthroplasty surgeons should consider these findings in conjunction with their clinical judgment when deciding on the ideal method of femoral fixation for primary THAs.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12123945/s1, Table S1: Procedure, diagnosis, and exclusion codes. Table S2. Complication Codes.

Author Contributions

Data curation, X.T.C., A.T. and B.S.G.; Formal analysis, X.T.C., B.C.C., A.M.B. and S.S.; Methodology, A.B.C. and N.D.H.; Supervision, A.B.C. and N.D.H.; Writing—original draft, X.T.C. and B.C.C.; Writing—review and editing, A.B.C., A.T., A.M.B., S.S., B.S.G. and N.D.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study is exempt from institutional review board approval given that all patient data within the NRD is deidentified.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the use of a HIPPA-compliant database with deidentified patient information.

Data Availability Statement

Data for this study can be found on the National Registration Database.

Conflicts of Interest

N.D.H. is a paid consultant for MicroPort Orthopedics and Intellijoint Surgical. A.B.C. is a paid consultant for Smith and Nephew and Intellijoint Surgical. No other conflict of interest to report by the remaining authors.

References

  1. Pabinger, C.; Geissler, A. Utilization rates of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2014, 22, 734–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. OECD. Hip and knee replacement. In Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pfuntner, A.; Wier, L.M.; Stocks, C. Most Frequent Procedures Performed in U.S. Hospitals, 2010: Statistical Brief #149. In Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): Rockville, MD, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  4. Maradit Kremers, H.; Larson, D.R.; Crowson, C.S.; Kremers, W.K.; Washington, R.E.; Steiner, C.A.; Jiranek, W.A.; Berry, D.J. Prevalence of Total Hip and Knee Replacement in the United States. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2015, 97, 1386–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Lehil, M.S.; Bozic, K.J. Trends in total hip arthroplasty implant utilization in the United States. J. Arthroplast. 2014, 29, 1915–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Heckmann, N.; Ihn, H.; Stefl, M.; Etkin, C.D.; Springer, B.D.; Berry, D.J.; Lieberman, J.R. Early Results From the American Joint Replacement Registry: A Comparison with Other National Registries. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S125–S134.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Murray, D.W. Cemented femoral fixation: The North Atlantic divide. Bone Jt. J. 2013, 95-B, 51–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Ling, R.S.; Charity, J.; Lee, A.C.; Whitehouse, S.L.; Timperley, A.J.; Gie, G.A. The long-term results of the original Exeter polished cemented femoral component: A follow-up report. J. Arthroplast. 2009, 24, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Lewthwaite, S.C.; Squires, B.; Gie, G.A.; Timperley, A.J.; Ling, R.S.M. The Exeter Universal hip in patients 50 years or younger at 10–17 years’ followup. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2008, 466, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kim, Y.-H. Bilateral cemented and cementless total hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2002, 17, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stauffer, R.N. Ten-year follow-up study of total hip replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1982, 64, 983–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zimmerman, S.; Hawkes, W.G.; Hudson, J.I.; Magaziner, J.; Hebel, J.R.; Towheed, T.; Gardner, J.; Provenzano, G.; Kenzora, J.E. Outcomes of surgical management of total HIP replacement in patients aged 65 years and older: Cemented versus cementless femoral components and lateral or anterolateral versus posterior anatomical approach. J. Orthop. Res. 2002, 20, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Emerson, R.H., Jr.; Head, W.C.; Emerson, C.B.; Rosenfeldt, W.; Higgins, L.L. A comparison of cemented and cementless titanium femoral components used for primary total hip arthroplasty: A radiographic and survivorship study. J. Arthroplast. 2002, 17, 584–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Corten, K.; Bourne, R.B.; Charron, K.D.; Au, K.; Rorabeck, C.H. What works best, a cemented or cementless primary total hip arthroplasty? Minimum 17-year followup of a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2011, 469, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Mäkelä, K.T.; Eskelinen, A.; Pulkkinen, P.; Virolainen, P.; Paavolainen, P.; Remes, V. Cemented versus cementless total hip replacements in patients fifty-five years of age or older with rheumatoid arthritis. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2011, 93, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hackbarth, G.; Reischauer, R.; Mutti, A. Collective accountability for medical care—Toward bundled Medicare payments. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Manickas-Hill, O.; Feeley, T.; Bozic, K.J. A Review of Bundled Payments in Total Joint Replacement. JBJS Rev. 2019, 7, e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hollenbeak, C.S.; Spencer, M.; Schilling, A.L.; Kirschman, D.; Warye, K.L.; Parvizi, J. Reimbursement Penalties and 30-Day Readmissions Following Total Joint Arthroplasty. JB JS Open Access 2020, 5, e19.00072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McLawhorn, A.S.; Buller, L.T. Bundled Payments in Total Joint Replacement: Keeping Our Care Affordable and High in Quality. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 2017, 10, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Clair, A.J.; Evangelista, P.J.; Lajam, C.M.; Slover, J.D.; Bosco, J.A.; Iorio, R. Cost Analysis of Total Joint Arthroplasty Readmissions in a Bundled Payment Care Improvement Initiative. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 1862–1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kurtz, S.M.; Lau, E.C.; Ong, K.L.; Adler, E.M.; Kolisek, F.R.; Manley, M.T. Hospital, Patient, and Clinical Factors Influence 30-and 90-Day Readmission after Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 2130–2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Bosco, J.A., 3rd; Karkenny, A.J.; Hutzler, L.H.; Slover, J.D.; Iorio, R. Cost burden of 30-day readmissions following Medicare total hip and knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2014, 29, 903–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mednick, R.E.; Alvi, H.M.; Krishnan, V.; Lovecchio, F.; Manning, D.W. Factors Affecting Readmission Rates following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2014, 96, 1201–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Paxton, E.W.; Inacio, M.C.S.; Singh, J.A.; Love, R.; Bini, S.A.; Namba, R.S. Are There Modifiable Risk Factors for Hospital Readmission after Total Hip Arthroplasty in a US Healthcare System? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2015, 473, 3446–3455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Ramkumar, P.N.; Chu, C.T.; Harris, J.D.; Athiviraham, A.; Harrington, M.A.; White, D.; Berger, D.H.; Naik, A.D.; Li, L.T. Causes and Rates of Unplanned Readmissions after Elective Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Orthop. 2015, 44, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Berry, D.J. Epidemiology: Hip and knee. Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 1999, 30, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Springer, B.D.; Etkin, C.D.; Shores, P.B.; Gioe, T.J.; Lewallen, D.G.; Bozic, K.J. Perioperative Periprosthetic Femur Fractures are Strongly Correlated with Fixation Method: An Analysis from the American Joint Replacement Registry. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S352–S354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yoon, B.-H.; Ha, Y.-C.; Lee, Y.-K.; Koo, K.-H. Postoperative Deep Infection after Cemented versus Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis. J. Arthroplast. 2015, 30, 1823–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mulliken, B.; Nayak, N.; Bourne, R.; Rorabeck, C.; Bullas, R. Early radiographic results comparing cemented and cementless total hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 1996, 11, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hailer, N.P.; Garellick, G.; Kärrholm, J. Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2010, 81, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Kurtz, S.M.; Lau, E.C.; Ong, K.L.; Adler, E.M.; Kolisek, F.R.; Manley, M.T. Which Clinical and Patient Factors Influence the National Economic Burden of Hospital Readmissions after Total Joint Arthroplasty? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2017, 475, 2926–2937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Gausden, E.B.; Parhar, H.S.; Popper, J.E.; Sculco, P.K.; Rush, B.N. Risk Factors for Early Dislocation Following Primary Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 1567–1571.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hearn, S.L.; Bicalho, P.S.; Eng, K.; Booth, R.E.; Hozack, W.J.; Rothman, R.H. Comparison of cemented and cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients with bilateral hip arthroplasties. J. Arthroplast. 1995, 10, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hozack, W.J.; Rothman, R.H.; Booth, R.E., Jr.; Balderston, R.A. Cemented versus cementless total hip arthroplasty. A comparative study of equivalent patient populations. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1993, 289, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 03945 g001a 550Jcm 12 03945 g001b 550
Figure 1. Forest plots of multivariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at (A) 30 days, (B) 90 days, and (C) 180 days postoperatively.
Figure 1. Forest plots of multivariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at (A) 30 days, (B) 90 days, and (C) 180 days postoperatively.
Jcm 12 03945 g001aJcm 12 03945 g001b
Table
Table 1. Patient information and surgical indications.
Table 1. Patient information and surgical indications.
Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients
(n = 35,226)		Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients
(n = 412,676)		p-Value
Age (years), mean ± SD69.97 ± 12.3964.81 ± 11.22p < 0.0001
Sex
Female, n (%)22,890 (65.0%)224,083 (54.3%)p < 0.0001
Male, n (%)12,336 (35.0%)188,593 (45.7%)
Charlson Comorbidity Index Score, mean ± SD3.65 ± 1.293.22 ± 1.26
History of myocardial infarction3107 (8.82%)29,699 (7.20%)p < 0.0001
Congestive heart failure1300 (3.69%)9275 (2.25%)
Peripheral vascular disease1520 (4.31%)16,443 (3.98%)
History of a cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack1778 (5.05%)20,749 (5.03%)
Dementia0 (0%)0 (0%)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease1048 (2.98%)14,848 (3.60%)
Connective tissue disease244 (0.69%)1824 (0.44%)
Peptic ulcer disease0 (0%)0 (0%)
Liver disease16 (0.05%)135 (0.03%)
Diabetes mellitus3994 11.3(%)46,285 (11.2%)
Hemiplegia118 (0.34%)1406 (0.34%)
Moderate to severe chronic kidney disease1212 (%)6797 (1.65%)
Solid tumor0 (0%)0 (0%)
Leukemia/Lymphoma239 (3.44%)1005 (0.24%)
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome34 (0.10%)421 (0.10%)
Surgical Indication
Primary osteoarthritis of the hip25,878 (73.5%)358,200 (86.8%)p < 0.0001
Rheumatoid arthritis of the hip13 (0.04%)54 (0.01%)
Osteonecrosis of the hip1004 (2.85%)10,802 (2.62%)
Secondary osteoarthritis of the hip683 (1.94%)6255 (1.52%)
Hip dysplasia177 (0.50%)2546 (0.62%)
Other7474 (21.2%)34,819 (8.44%)
Insurance
Medicare, n (%)24,206 (68.7%)218,208 (52.9%)p < 0.0001
Medicaid, n (%)1515 (4.30%)19,232 (4.66%)
Private, n (%)8516 (24.2%)163,161 (39.5%)
Other (include self-pay, no charge, and other), n (%)955 (2.71%)11,737 (2.84%)
Median income by zip code
Quartile 1, n (%)6927 (19.7%)79,423 (19.3%)p < 0.0001
Quartile 2, n (%)9786 (27.8%)108,169 (26.2%)
Quartile 3, n (%)9426 (26.8%)114,520 (27.8%)
Quartile 4, n (%)8661 (24.6%)104,993 (25.4%)
Hospital type
Metropolitan non-teaching, n (%)8788 (24.9%)115,905 (28.1%)p < 0.0001
Metropolitan teaching, n (%)22,966 (65.2%)257,168 (62.3%)
Non-metropolitan, n (%)3472 (9.9%)39,603 (9.60%)
Discharge location
Routine/Home, n (%)10,703 (30.4%)172,556 (41.8%)p < 0.0001
Short-term hospital, n (%)114 (0.33%)499 (0.12%)
Skilled nursing facility, n (%)10,869 (30.9%)58,864 (14.3%)
Home health care, n (%)13,413 (38.1%)180,165 (43.7%)
Table
Table 2. (A) Univariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at 30 days postoperatively. (B) Univariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at 90 days postoperatively. (C) Univariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at 180 days postoperatively.
Table 2. (A) Univariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at 30 days postoperatively. (B) Univariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at 90 days postoperatively. (C) Univariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at 180 days postoperatively.
(A)
Complications within 30 DaysCemented Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients (n = 32,507)Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients (n = 375,658)OR95% CIp-Value
Readmission for any reason1709 (5.26%)12,894 (3.43%)2.5582.450 to 2.670<0.0001
Dislocation of internal hip prosthesis198 (0.61%)1050 (0.28%)2.1861.878 to 2.546<0.0001
Periprosthetic fracture55 (0.17%)1141 (0.30%)0.55630.4243 to 0.7293<0.0001
Periprosthetic joint infection227 (0.70%)1479 (0.39%)1.7791.546 to 2.047<0.0001
Aseptic loosening69 (0.21%)311 (0.08%)2.5671.977 to 3.333<0.0001
Embolism due to internal orthopedic prosthetic devices, implants and grafts6 (0.02%)26 (0.007%)2.6671.098 to 6.480p = 0.0383
Thrombosis due to internal orthopedic prosthetic devices, implants and grafts0 (0%)8 (0.002%)0.67980.03923 to 11.78>0.9999
Wound injury93 (0.29%)579 (0.15%)1.8591.493 to 2.314<0.0001
Postprocedural hemorrhage45 (0.14%)411 (0.11%)1.2660.9302 to 1.7220.1329
Postprocedural hematoma36 (0.11%)382 (0.10%)1.0890.7738 to 1.5330.6243
Postprocedural seroma11 (0.03%)163 (0.04%)0.77980.4234 to 1.4360.486
Other intraoperative and postprocedural complications6 (0.02%)11 (0.003%)6.3042.331 to 17.050.0015
Acute myocardial infarction67 (0.21%)340 (0.09%)2.281.754 to 2.963<0.0001
Pneumonia143 (0.44%)719 (0.19%)2.3041.925 to 2.758<0.0001
Respiratory failure186 (0.57%)1021 (0.27%)2.1121.805 to 2.470<0.0001
Acute renal failure250 (0.77%)1480 (0.39%)1.9591.713 to 2.242<0.0001
Cerebral infarction34 (0.10%)125 (0.03%)3.1462.153 to 4.596<0.0001
Peripheral nerve injury2 (0.006%)41 (0.01%)0.56370.1363 to 2.3310.5794
Death40 (0.12%)126 (0.03%)3.6722.572 to 5.241<0.0001
Postoperative ileus18 (0.06%)188 (0.05%)1.1070.6822 to 1.7950.6984
Urinary tract infection147 (0.45%)1052 (0.28%)1.6181.361 to 1.923<0.0001
All medical complications887 (2.73%)5092 (1.36%)2.0411.899 to 2.194<0.0001
(B)
Complications within 90 daysCemented Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients (n = 26,641)Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients (n = 302,971)OR95% CIp-Value
Readmission for any reason3038 (11.4%)23,587 (7.79%)1.5251.465 to 1.587<0.0001
Dislocation of internal hip prosthesis284 (1.07%)1501 (0.50%)2.1641.905 to 2.458<0.0001
Periprosthetic fracture91 (0.34%)1182 (0.39%)0.87510.7068 to 1.0830.2206
Periprosthetic joint infection335 (1.26%)1815 (0.60%)2.1131.879 to 2.376<0.0001
Aseptic loosening92 (0.35%)446 (0.15%)2.3511.877 to 2.943<0.0001
Embolism due to internal orthopedic prosthetic devices, implants and grafts6 (0.02%)32 (0.01%)2.1330.8916 to 5.1010.1232
Thrombosis due to internal orthopedic prosthetic devices, implants and grafts0 (0%)9 (0.003%)0.59850.03483 to 10.28>0.9999
Wound injury96 (0.36%)739 (0.24%)1.4791.195 to 1.8300.0003
Postprocedural hemorrhage48 (0.18%)466 (0.15%)1.1720.8703 to 1.5770.2958
Postprocedural hematoma40 (0.15%)335 (0.11%)1.3580.9784 to 1.8860.0662
Postprocedural seroma20 (0.08%)152 (0.05%)1.4970.9389 to 2.3860.0925
Other intraoperative and postprocedural complications9 (0.03%)14 (0.005%)7.3133.165 to 16.90<0.0001
Acute myocardial infarction81 (0.30%)460 (0.15%)2.0061.583 to 2.541<0.0001
Pneumonia210 (0.79%)1002 (0.33%)2.3942.062 to 2.780<0.0001
Respiratory failure291 (1.09%)1454 (0.48%)2.292.018 to 2.599<0.0001
Acute renal failure419 (1.57%)2103 (0.69%)2.2862.057 to 2.541<0.0001
Cerebral infarction47 (0.18%)226 (0.07%)2.3671.729 to 3.242<0.0001
Peripheral nerve injury11 (0.04%)62 (0.02%)2.0181.063 to 3.8320.0479
Death76 (0.29%)245 (0.08%)3.5352.732 to 4.574<0.0001
Postoperative ileus37 (0.14%)222 (0.07%)1.8971.339 to 2.6870.0002
Urinary tract infection276 (1.04%)1449 (0.48%)2.1781.914 to 2.479<0.0001
All medical complications1448 (5.44%)7223 (2.38%)2.3532.221 to 2.494<0.0001
(C)
Complications within 180 daysCemented Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients (n = 17,970)Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients (n = 203,987)OR95% CIp-Value
Readmission for any reason3286 (18.3%)27,506 (13.5%)1.4361.380 to 1.494<0.0001
Dislocation of internal hip prosthesis205 (1.14%)1252 (0.61%)1.8691.611 to 2.168<0.0001
Periprosthetic fracture66 (0.37%)815 (0.40%)0.9190.7148 to 1.1820.5097
Periprosthetic joint infection271 (1.51%)1342 (0.66%)2.3122.027 to 2.637<0.0001
Aseptic loosening66 (0.37%)402 (0.20%)1.8671.438 to 2.423<0.0001
Embolism due to internal orthopedic prosthetic devices, implants and grafts3 (0.02%)19 (0.009%)1.7920.5304 to 6.0580.4177
Thrombosis due to internal orthopedic prosthetic devices, implants and grafts0 (0%)7 (0.003%)0.75670.04322 to 13.25>0.9999
Wound injury62 (0.35%)499 (0.24%)1.4121.084 to 1.8390.0102
Postprocedural hemorrhage36 (0.20%)335 (0.16%)1.220.8650 to 1.7220.256
Postprocedural hematoma20 (0.11%)204 (0.10%)1.1130.7030 to 1.7620.6235
Postprocedural seroma2 (0.01%)99 (0.05%)0.22920.05653 to 0.92950.0169
Other intraoperative and postprocedural complications1 (0.006%)26 (0.01%)0.43660.05924 to 3.2170.7212
Acute myocardial infarction68 (0.38%)494 (0.24%)1.5651.214 to 2.0170.0005
Pneumonia224 (1.25%)953 (0.47%)2.6892.323 to 3.113<0.0001
Respiratory failure280 (1.56%)1419 (0.70%)2.261.986 to 2.571<0.0001
Acute renal failure410 (2.28%)2044 (1.00%)2.3072.072 to 2.568<0.0001
Cerebral infarction55 (0.31%)241 (0.12%)2.5951.936 to 3.480<0.0001
Peripheral nerve injury9 (0.05%)82 (0.04%)1.2460.6260 to 2.4800.5609
Death64 (0.36%)230 (0.11%)3.1662.399 to 4.179<0.0001
Postoperative ileus26 (0.14%)199 (0.10%)1.4840.9857 to 2.2340.057
Urinary tract infection274 (1.52%)1457 (0.71%)2.1521.890 to 2.451<0.0001
All medical complications1410 (7.85%)7119 (3.49%)2.3552.219 to 2.498<0.0001
Table
Table 3. Multivariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days postoperatively. Cemented femoral fixation was the independent variable while cementless femoral fixation was set as the reference.
Table 3. Multivariate analysis comparing complication and readmission rates at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days postoperatively. Cemented femoral fixation was the independent variable while cementless femoral fixation was set as the reference.
30-Day OutcomesAdjusted OR95% CIp-Value
Dislocation1.22790.9677–1.54490.08511
Periprosthetic joint infection1.21210.9733–1.49900.080586
Periprosthetic fracture0.34980.2326–0.5058<0.0001
Aseptic loosening1.18710.7601–1.78710.429851
Wound dehiscence1.24260.8910–1.69960.18651
Postoperative hematoma0.71640.4262–1.13720.18051
Postoperative seroma0.54930.2107–1.18000.16546
Other perioperative complications1.10090.0558–7.16260.9317
30-day readmission1.24621.1569–1.3408<0.0001
Medical complications1.20861.0338–1.41090.01689
Death1.85411.1353–2.89190.0093
90-day outcomesAdjusted OR95% CIp-value
Dislocation1.23221.0111–1.49240.035461
Periprosthetic joint infection1.3541.1277–1.61760.000985
Periprosthetic fracture0.54410.4000–0.7248<0.0001
Aseptic loosening1.14310.7901–1.61220.46126
Wound dehiscence0.92890.6751–1.25320.639764
Postoperative hematoma0.72120.4335–1.13720.18177
Postoperative seroma0.85270.4064–1.60760.6464
Other perioperative complications2.4550.5028–9.28650.2127
90-day readmission1.37111.2948–1.4510<0.0001
Medical complications1.251.1045–1.41310.000383
Death1.85231.3015–2.57500.000385
180-day outcomesAdjusted OR95% CIp-value
Dislocation1.20040.9622–1.48490.098667
Periprosthetic joint infection1.64421.3491–1.9921<0.0001
Periprosthetic fracture0.57250.3959–0.80310.00194
Aseptic loosening0.97960.6461–1.43510.91915
Wound dehiscence0.86840.5785–1.26030.47622
Postoperative hematoma0.78650.4044–1.39650.44353
Postoperative seroma0.13460.0076–0.62360.0482
Other perioperative complications0.75020.0405–3.99290.7859
180-day readmission1.31561.2428–1.3920<0.0001
Medical complications1.27961.1322–1.4443<0.0001
Death1.63331.1112–2.32730.009075
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, X.T.; Christ, A.B.; Chung, B.C.; Ton, A.; Ballatori, A.M.; Shahrestani, S.; Gettleman, B.S.; Heckmann, N.D. Cemented versus Cementless Femoral Fixation for Elective Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Analysis of Short-Term Complication and Readmission Rates. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 3945. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123945

AMA Style

Chen XT, Christ AB, Chung BC, Ton A, Ballatori AM, Shahrestani S, Gettleman BS, Heckmann ND. Cemented versus Cementless Femoral Fixation for Elective Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Analysis of Short-Term Complication and Readmission Rates. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(12):3945. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123945

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Xiao T., Alexander B. Christ, Brian C. Chung, Andy Ton, Alexander M. Ballatori, Shane Shahrestani, Brandon S. Gettleman, and Nathanael D. Heckmann. 2023. "Cemented versus Cementless Femoral Fixation for Elective Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Analysis of Short-Term Complication and Readmission Rates" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 12: 3945. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123945

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop