• Jon H M Goosen, Marieke C Mulder, Karst J Bongers, and Cees C P M Verheyen.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands. j.h.m.goosen@isala.nl
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Jun 1;129(6):801-5.

BackgroundThe advantages of uncemented and cemented components in hip arthroplasty have been subject of debate. We have studied on a hemiprosthesis, which can be optionally implanted with or without cement. Since the stem geometry and surface in cemented arthroplasty differs from the uncemented one and cannot be fused into one general design, we hypothesised that this hemiprosthesis used without cement has a considerable high revision rate, based on aseptic loosening.MethodsA hemiprosthesis, which is designed for both cemented and uncemented fixation, was used (Conquest, Smith&Nephew). Preoperatively, the choice of whether to use cement or not was based on the shape and bone quality of the femoral canal. Revision rate and indication, mortality, perioperative complications and radiographic features of 151 consecutive hips in 146 patients were evaluated.ResultsTwenty-three stems (15%) were implanted with cement and 128 (85%) without. After a mean follow-up of 2 years, a revision rate of 8.6% and a survival percentage of 90% (CI 85-95) were observed. Twelve uncemented stems warranted revision, compared with one cemented stem. Revision because of aseptic loosening was necessary in 7 (6%) stems, all uncemented. No differences in operation-related mortality and morbidity were observed.ConclusionBecause of the rather high revision rate, the authors advice not to use this hemiprosthesis without cement.

28 keywords...

hide…