Cemented Versus Cementless Total Hip Replacements in Patients Fifty-five Years of Age or Older with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Abstract

Background: 

Results obtained from single-center studies indicate that a cemented total hip replacement is the treatment of choice for the management of patients over fifty-five years of age with rheumatoid arthritis. The aim of this study was to analyze population-based survival rates for cemented and cementless total hip replacements in patients aged fifty-five years or over with rheumatoid arthritis in Finland.

Methods: 

Between 1980 and 2006, a total of 6000 primary total hip replacements performed for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in patients who were fifty-five years of age or older were entered in the Finnish Arthroplasty Registry. 4019 of them fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were subjected to analysis. The implants were classified into one of three possible groups: (1) a cementless group (a noncemented proximally porous-coated stem and a noncemented porous-coated press-fit cup), (2) a cemented group 1 (a cemented, loaded-taper stem combined with a cemented, all-polyethylene cup), or (3) a cemented group 2 (a cemented, composite-beam stem with a cemented, all-polyethylene cup).

Results: 

Cementless stems and cups, analyzed separately, had a significantly lower risk of revision for aseptic loosening than cemented implants in patients who were fifty-five years of age or older with rheumatoid arthritis. The fifteen-year survival rate of cementless total hip replacements (80%) was comparable with the rates of the cemented groups (86% in cemented group 1 and 79% in cemented group 2) when revisions for any reason were used as the end point.

Conclusions: 

Cementless and cemented total hip replacements produced comparable long-term results in patients who were fifty-five years of age or older with rheumatoid arthritis.

Level of Evidence: 

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.