Registry-based study of survivorship of cemented femoral components versus collared cementless femoral components in total hip arthroplasty in older patients with osteoarthritis

Aims In recent years, the use of a collared cementless femoral prosthesis has risen in popularity. The design intention of collared components is to transfer some load to the resected femoral calcar and prevent implant subsidence within the cancellous bone of the metaphysis. Conversely, the load transfer for a cemented femoral prosthesis depends on the cement-component and cement-bone interface interaction. The aim of our study was to compare the three most commonly used collared cementless components and the three most commonly used tapered polished cemented components in patients aged ≥ 75 years who have undergone a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA). Methods Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2022 were analyzed. Collared cementless femoral components and cemented components were identified, and the three most commonly used components in each group were analyzed. We identified a total of 11,278 collared cementless components and 47,835 cemented components. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and sex, were obtained to compare the revision rates between the groups. Results From six months postoperatively onwards, patients aged ≥ 75 years undergoing primary THA with primary diagnosis of OA have a lower risk of all-cause revision with collared cementless components than with a polished tapered cemented component (HR 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.96); p = 0.018). There is no difference in revision rate prior to six months. Conclusion Patients aged ≥ 75 years with a primary diagnosis of OA have a significantly lower rate of revision with the most common collared cementless femoral component, compared with the most common polished tapered cemented components from six months postoperatively onwards. The lower revision rate is largely due to a reduction in revisions for fracture and infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):121–129.