• Ailbhe White-Gibson, Gerard Anthony Sheridan, Adrian Cassar Ghetti, Peter Keogh, Paddy Kenny, and James Patrick Cashman.
• The National Orthopaedic Hospital, Cappagh, Dublin, Ireland. whitegia@tcd.ie.
• Ir J Med Sci. 2024 Feb 1; 193 (1): 251255251-255.

BackgroundTotal hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. The controversy surrounding the relative merits of a cemented composite beam or cemented taper-slip stem in total hip replacement continues. Our aims primarily were to assess the 10-year outcomes of cemented stems using Charnley and Exeter prostheses with regional registry data and secondarily to assess the main predictors of revision.MethodsWe prospectively collected registry data for procedures performed between January 2005 and June 2008. Only cemented Charnley and Exeter stems were included. Patients were prospectively reviewed at 6 months, 2, 5 and 10 years. The primary outcome measure was a 10-year all-cause revision. Secondary outcomes included 're-revision', 'mortality' and functional 'Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index' (WOMAC) scores.ResultsWe recorded a total of 1351 cases in the cohort, 395 Exeter and 956 Charnley stems. The overall all-cause revision rate at 10 years was 1.6%. The revision rate for Charnley stem was 1.4% and 2.3% revision rate for all Exeter stems with no significant difference noted between the two cohorts (p = 0.24). The overall time to revision was 38.3 months. WOMAC scores at 10 years were found to be insignificantly higher for Charnley stems (mean 23.8, σ = 20.11) compared to Exeter stems (mean 19.78, σ = 20.72) (p = 0.1).ConclusionThere is no significant difference between cemented Charnley and Exeter stems; they both perform well above the international average. The decline in the use of cemented THA is not fully supported by this regional registry data.© 2023. The Author(s).

15 keywords...

hide…