title: Are There Long-term Benefits to Cementing the Metaphyseal Stem in Hip Resurfacing?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Cementing the metaphyseal stem during hip resurfacing surgery improves the initial fixation of the femoral component. However, there may be long-term detrimental effects such as stress shielding or an increased risk of thermal necrosis associated with this technique.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We compared (1) long-term survivorship free from radiographic femoral failure, (2) validated pain scores, and (3) radiographic evidence of component fixation between hips resurfaced with a cemented metaphyseal stem and hips resurfaced with the metaphyseal stem left uncemented.
  
  
  METHODS
  We retrospectively selected all the patients who had undergone bilateral hip resurfacing with an uncemented metaphyseal stem on one side, a cemented metaphyseal stem on the other side, and had both surgeries performed between July 1998 and February 2005. Forty-three patients matched these inclusion criteria. During that period, the indications for cementing the stem evolved in the practice of the senior author (HCA), passing through four phases; initially, only hips with large femoral defects had a cemented stem, then all stems were cemented, then all stems were left uncemented. Finally, stems were cemented for patients receiving small femoral components (< 48 mm) or having large femoral defects (or both). Of the 43 cemented stems, two, 13, 0, and 28 came from each of those four periods. All 43 patients had complete followup at a minimum of 9 years (mean, 143 ± 21 months for the uncemented stems; and 135 ± 22 months for the cemented stems; p = 0.088). Survivorship analyses were performed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards ratios using radiographic failure of the femoral component as the endpoint. Pain was assessed with University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) pain scores, and radiographic femoral failure was defined as complete radiolucency around the metaphyseal stem or gross migration of the femoral component.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were four failures of the femoral component in the press-fit stem group while the cemented stem group had no femoral failures (p = 0.0471). With the numbers available, we found no differences between the two groups regarding pain relief or radiographic appearance other than in patients whose components developed loosening.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Cementing the metaphyseal stem improves long-term implant survival and does not alter long-term pain relief or the radiographic appearance of the proximal femur as had been a concern based on the results of finite element studies. We believe that patients with small component sizes and large femoral head defects have more to gain from the use of this technique which adds surface area for fixation, and there is no clinical downside to cementing the stem in patients with large component sizes.
  
  
  METHODS
  Level III, therapeutic study.
authors.affiliation: Joint Replacement Institute, St. Vincent Medical Center, 2200 West Third Street, Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA, 90057, USA, harlanamstutz@dochs.org.
authors.forename: Harlan C
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Amstutz
authors.forename: Michel J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Le Duff
authors.forename: Sandeep K
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Bhaurla
mesh_terms: D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / Q000379:methods*; D001843:Bone Cements; D005260:Female; D005269:Femur; D006622:Hip Prosthesis; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D001843:Bone Cements