Fixation only of Vancouver B Proximal Femoral Fractures (PFF's), specifically with Cemented Taper Slip stems (CTS) with an intact bone cement interface, has been shown to have reduced blood transfusion requirements and reoperations, compared to revision arthroplasty. This potentially carries the risk of stem subsidence and loosening, which negatively impacts functional outcome. The incidence of stem subsidence and associated fracture morphology have not previously been reported. We retrospectively reviewed all Vancouver B PFF's in primary THR around CTS stems treated with internal fixation only between June 2015 and March 2021 for fracture morphology (Low Spiral (LS), High Spiral (HS), Metaphyseal Split (MS) and Short Oblique (SO)), fracture union and stem subsidence. Interprosthetic fractures and inadequate follow up were excluded. Secondary outcomes were collected. Out of 577 cases on our local periprosthetic database, 134 Vancouver B PFF's around CTS stems were identified, of which 77 patients underwent ORIF only. Of these, 50 procedures were identified, 21 were lost to follow up and 6 patients died before 6 months. Age, mortality rate and ASA is presented. Review of Fracture morphology showed: 100% (3/3) of HS subsided (1 revised for loosening); 68 % (19/28) of MS subsided (1 revised for loosening); 11.1 % (2/18) of LS subsided (0 revised for loosening); 0% (1/1) of SO subsided. There were 2 revisions for non-union (LS group). No dislocations were recorded. There was a statistically significant association between Morphology and Subsidence P value 0.0004). Major subsidence was observed in 8 patients (3 HS, 4 MS and 1 LS) which was associated with a significance reduction in mobility. Subsidence was associated with negative symptoms (P value < 0.0001). Fixation of all Vancouver B PFF's does not produce uniformly good results. Revision rates following ORIF do not fully reflect patient outcomes. This trend will affect the NJR, stem rating and patient satisfaction. Subsidence after ORIF was associated with certain morphologies (HS & MS) and stem revision may be preferrable, in keeping with GIRFT. A morphology-based classification system can inform decision making

The February 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Trial of vancomycin and cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis in arthroplasty; Is preoperative posterior femoral neck tilt a risk factor for fixation failure? Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip; Periprosthetic fractures in larger hydroxyapatite-coated stems: are collared stems a better alternative for total hip arthroplasty?; Postoperative periprosthetic fracture following hip arthroplasty with a polished taper slip versus composite beam stem; Is oral tranexamic acid as good as intravenous?; Stem design and the risk of early periprosthetic femur fractures following THA in elderly patients; Does powered femoral broaching compromise patient safety in total hip arthroplasty?

The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):481–486

The April 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Do technical errors determine outcomes of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in younger adults?; Single-stage or two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM); Fixation better than revision in type B periprosthetic fractures of taper slip stems; Can you maximize femoral head size at the expense of liner thickness?; Plasma D-dimer for periprosthetic joint infection?; How important is in vivo oxidation?; Total hip arthroplasty for HIV patients with osteonecrosis

Aim of this study was to identify reoperation rates in patients with short oblique and transverse fractures around a well fixed cemented polished taper slip stem and to determine any associations with treatment failure. Retrospective cohort study of 31 patients with AO transverse or short oblique Vancouver B1 PFFs around THA (total hip arthroplasty) cemented taper slip stems: 12 male (39%); mean age 74±11.9 (range 44–91); mean BMI 28.5±1.4 (range 16–48); and median ASA 3. Patient journeys were assessed, re-interventions reviewed. The primary outcome measure was reoperation. Time from primary THA to fracture was 11.3±7.8yrs (0.5–26yrs). Primary surgical management was fixation in 27/31 and rTHA (revision total hip arthroplasty) in 4/31. 10 of 31 (32%) patients required reoperation, 9 within 2 years of fracture: 1 following rTHA and 8 following ORIF. The commonest mode of failure was non-union (n=6). No significant associations with reoperation requirement were identified. Kaplan-Meier free from reoperation was 67.4% (49.8–85.0 95% CI) at 2 years and this was unaffected by initial management with ORIF or rTHA (Log rank 0.898). Of those reoperated, 6/10 required multiple reoperations to obtain either bony union or a stable revision construct and 13% ultimately required proximal femoral endoprostheses. The relative risk of 1 year mortality was 1.6 (0.25 to 10.1 95%CI) among patients who required reoperation compared to those who did not. These are difficult fractures to manage, should not be underestimated and patients should be counselled that there is a 30% risk of reoperation and 20% of requiring multiple reoperations

Aims. The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of reoperation (all cause and specifically for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF)) and mortality, and associated risk factors, following a hemiarthroplasty incorporating a cemented collarless polished taper slip stem (PTS) for management of an intracapsular hip fracture. Methods. This retrospective study included hip fracture patients aged 50 years and older treated with Exeter (PTS) bipolar hemiarthroplasty between 2019 and 2022. Patient demographics, place of domicile, fracture type, delirium status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, length of stay, and mortality were collected. Reoperation and mortality were recorded up to a median follow-up of 29.5 months (interquartile range 12 to 51.4). Cox regression was performed to evaluate independent risk factors associated with reoperation and mortality. Results. The cohort consisted of 1,619 patients with a mean age of 82.2 years (50 to 104), of whom 1,100 (67.9%) were female. In total, 29 patients (1.8%) underwent a reoperation; 12 patients (0.7%) sustained a PFF during the observation period (United Classification System (UCS)-A n = 2; UCS-B n = 5; UCS-C n = 5), of whom ten underwent surgical management. Perioperative delirium was independently associated with the occurrence of PFF (hazard ratio (HR) 5.92; p = 0.013) and surgery for UCS-B PFF (HR 21.7; p = 0.022). Neither all-cause reoperation nor PFF-related surgery was independently associated with mortality (HR 0.66; p = 0.217 and HR 0.38; p = 0.170, respectively). Perioperative delirium, male sex, older age, higher ASA grade, and pre-fracture residential status were independently associated with increased mortality risk following hemiarthroplasty (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The cumulative incidence of PFF at four years was 1.1% in elderly patients following cemented PTS hemiarthroplasty for a hip fracture. Perioperative delirium was independently associated with a PFF. However, reoperation for PPF was not independently associated with patient mortality after adjusting for patient-specific factors. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):269–276

Current estimates of periprosthetic fracture risk associated with femoral implants is mostly limited to revision only estimates and does not accurately represent stem performance. The aim of this study was to estimate the risk of surgically treated post-operative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) more accurately associated with frequently used femoral implants used for total hip arthroplasty (THA). A cohort study of patients who underwent primary THA in England between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2020. Periprosthetic fractures were identified from prospectively collected revision records and national procedure coding records. Survival modelling was used to estimate POPFF incidence rates, adjusting for potential confounders. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients over 70 years, with non-osteoarthritic indications, and neck of femur fracture. POPFF occurred in 0.6% (5100/809,832) of cases during a median (IQR) follow up of 6.5 (3.9 to 9.6) years. The majority of POPFF were treated with fixation after implantation of a cemented stem. Adjusted patient time incidence rates (PTIR) for POPFF varied by stem design, regardless of cement fixation. Cemented composite beam stems (CB stems) demonstrated the lowest risk of POPFF. Collared cementless stems had an equivalent or lower rate of POPFF versus the current gold standard polished taper slip cemented stem. POPFF account for a quarter of all revisions following primary THA. Cemented CB stems are associated with the lowest POPFF risk. Stem design is strongly associated with POPFF risk, regardless of the presence of cement. Surgeons, policymakers, and patients should consider these findings when recommending femoral implants in those most at risk of POPFF

This study compared the pullout forces of the initial implantation and the “cement-in-cement” revision technique for short and standard-length (125 mm vs. 150 mm) Exeter. ®. V40 femoral stems used in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The idea that the pullout force for a double taper slip stem is relative to the force applied to the femur and that “cement-in-cement” revision provides the same reproduction of force. A total sample size of 15 femoral stems were tested (Short, n = 6 and Standard, n = 9). 3D printed fixtures for repeatable sample preparation were used to minimize variance during testing. To promote stem subsidence and to simulate an in vivo environment, the samples were placed in an incubator at 37°C at 100% humidity and experienced a constant compressive loading of 1335 N for 14 days. The samples underwent a displacement-controlled pullout test. After the initial pullout test, “cement-in-cement” revision will be performed and tested similar to the initial implantation to observe the efficacy of the revision technique. To compare the pullout forces between the two groups, a Kruskal-Wallis test using a significance level of 0.05 was conducted. The mean maximum pullout force for the short and standard-length femoral stems were 3939 ± 1178 N and 5078 ± 1168 N, respectively. The Kruskal-Wallis test determined no statistically significant difference between the two groups for the initial implantation (p = 0.13). The “cement-in-cement” revision pullout force will be conducted in future testing. This study demonstrated the potential use of short stem designs for THA as it provides similar levels of fixation as the standard-length femoral stem. The potential benefits for using a short stem design would be providing similar load transfer to the proximal femur, preserving proximal metaphyseal femoral bone in primary replacement, and reducing the invasiveness during revision

Previous studies have highlighted differences in the risk of periprosthetic fracture between tapered slip (TS) and composite beam (CB) stems. This biomechanical study explored periprosthetic fractures around these stems and the effect of adding a 16-gauge calcar or diaphyseal wire to TS stems on their resistance to torque. A power analysis determined a sample size of 7 specimens per group, assuming a standard deviation of 14.8 Nm in peak torque, to provide 90% power to detect a difference of at least 30 Nm between groups. Twenty-one TS stems (eight alone, six with calcar wiring, seven with diaphyseal wiring placed 2 cm distal to the lesser trochanter) and seven CB stems were cemented into standard Sawbones. A servo-hydraulic test machine applied a 1000 N load with a 1-degree rotation per second until failure. The peak torque at failure was measured, and the fracture location recorded. Comparisons were performed using two-sample t-tests. CB stems exhibited a significantly higher peak torque at failure (205.3 Nm) than TS stems (159.5 Nm, p=0.020). Calcar-wire-TS (148.2 Nm, p=0.036) and diaphyseal-wire-TS (164.9 Nm, p=0.036) were both weaker than CB stems. Wired-TS stems showed no significant difference from non-wired-TS stems. Additionally, the study could not conclude that calcar wiring is stronger than diaphyseal wiring. All TS fractures occurred at the mid-stem, simulating a B-type fracture, while the addition of the diaphyseal wire shifted the fracture location more distally in four of seven stems (p=0.0699). This biomechanical study supports the clinical evidence that CB stems have stronger resistance to torque than TS stems and may explain lower risk of periprosthetic fracture. The addition of calcar or diaphyseal wires to TS stems resulted in no significant changes in peak torque to fracture. In patients at high risk of periprosthetic fracture, CB cemented stems should be considered

The increased torque required to dislocate dual mobility (DM) components may increase peri-prosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) risk. Current literature often relies on revision as an endpoint and may underestimate PPF. This study aims to review PPF rate, risks and treatment following primary DM implantation. Prospective cohort study of 549 patients following primary DM total hip arthroplasty (THA) between 2013 and 2021. Collected data included demographics, indication for surgery, cortical index and PPF. 549 patients were identified with primary DM THA. Mean age was 73 years (26–96). 446 (81.2%) patients had their index surgery following hip fracture. 18 patients (3.27%) sustained a PPF. Cumulative PPF rate was 1.5% at 1-year, 2.2% at 5-years and 3.27% overall. PPF was higher in patients undergoing surgery following hip fracture (4%) vs. other indications (1%). OR 4.04 (95% CI:0.53, 30.72), p=0.219. Mean cortical index was lower in patients with PPF 0.4 (95% CI:0.36, 0.45) compared to those without 0.46 (95% CI:0.45, 0.46) p=0.029. Treatment for PPF included 10 (55.6%) open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), 7 (38.9%) revision THA and 1 conservatively managed. PPF rate following DM use is higher in our cohort than published rates. Our rates are comparable to some papers when subgroup analysis of older patients and cemented taper slip stems are considered. PPF risk with DM may be increased in patients undergoing surgery after hip fracture or with a lower cortical index preoperatively. Over half of PPF were managed with ORIF and may mask PPF risk studies that report using revision as an endpoint

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is of raising concern with the aging of the population. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the incidence of early PFF associated with Charnley- Kerboull (CK) stems cemented line-to-line according to the “French paradox” principles through the anterior approach (AA) in patients older than 70 years old. This monocentric study involved 25 surgeons with various level of experience. From a prospectively collected database, all CK stems (AmisK®, Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland) done consecutively from January 2018 to May 2022 through the AA in patients older than 70 years were included. The measured parameters included canal flare index (CFI), morphological cortical index (MCI), canal-calcar ratio (CCR), ilium-ischial ratio (IIR), ilium overhang, and anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) to greater trochanter distance. Dorr classification was also recorded. A total of 416 CK stems performed by 25 surgeons were included. All patients had a minimal 3-month follow-up. The mean age was 77.4 years, and the mean BMI was 25.3 kg/m. 2. According to the Dorr classification 240 hips were of Dorr type A, 144 Dorr type B, and 2 Dorr type C. Mean CFI, MCI, CCR, IIR and ASIS-GT were 3.8, 0.5, 2.8, 2.5, and 101mm, respectively. Amongst the 416 THAs, one (0.24%; 95% CI 0.20 – 0.28%) early PFF Vancouver type B2 fracture that occurred 24 days postoperatively was observed. This study demonstrated that CK stems cemented according to the “French Paradox” were associated with an extremely low rate of early PFF in patients over 70 years. The observed results are better than those reported with uncemented or taper slip cemented stems. Longer follow-up is warranted to evaluate further rate of fracture that may occur during the bone remodeling process around the femoral component

The significance of periprosthetic fractures about a total hip arthroplasty (THA) is becoming increasingly important. Recent studies have demonstrated post-operative periprosthetic fracture rates are higher amongst cemented polished taper slip (PTS) stem designs compared to collared cementless (CC) designs. However, in the National Joint Registry, the rate of intra-operative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IOPFF) with cementless implant systems remains higher (0.87% vs 0.42%. p <0.001) potentially leading to more post-operative complications. This study identifies the incidence of IOPFF, the fracture subtype and compares functional outcomes and revision rates of CC femoral implants with an IOPFF to CC stems and PTS stems without a fracture. 5376 consecutive CC stem THA, carried out through a posterior approach were reviewed for IOPFF. Each fracture was subdivided into calcar fracture, greater trochanter (GT) fracture or shaft fracture. 1:1:1 matched analysis was carried out to compare Oxford scores at one year. Matching criteria included; sex (exact), age (± 1 year), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade (exact), and date of surgery (± 6 months). Electronic records were used to review revision rates. Following review of the CC stems, 44 (0.8%) were identified as having an IOPFF. Of these 30 (0.6%) were calcar fractures, 11 (0.2%) GT fractures and 3 (0.06%) were shaft fractures. There were no shaft penetrations. Overall, no significant difference in Oxford scores at one year were observed when comparing the CC IOPFF, CC non-IOPFF and PTS groups. There were no CC stems revised for any reason with either a calcar fracture or trochanteric fracture within the period of 8 years follow-up. IOPFF do occur more frequently in cementless systems than cemented. The majority are calcar and GT fractures. These fractures, when identified and managed intra-operatively, do not have worse functional outcomes or revision rates compared to matched non-IOPFF cases

Safe and meticulous removal of the femoral cement mantle and cement restrictor can be a challenging process in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Many proximal femoral osteotomies have been described to access this region however they can be associated with fracture, non-union and revision stem instability. The aim of this study is to report outcomes of our previously unreported vascularised anterior window to the proximal femur. We report on a cohort of patients who underwent cemented single and staged rTHA at our single institution by the same surgeon between 2012 and 2017 using a novel vascularised anterior window of the femur to extract the cement mantle and restrictor safely under direct vision. We describe our technique, which maintains the periosteal and muscular attachments to the osteotomised fragment, which is then repaired with a polymer cerclage cable. In all revisions a polished, taper slip, long stem Exeter was cemented. Primary outcome measures included the time taken for union and the patient reported WOMAC score. Thirty-two rTHAs were performed in 29 consecutive patients (13 female, 16 male) with a mean age of 63.4 years (range, 47–88). The indications for revision included infection, aseptic loosening and implant malpositioning. Mean follow up was 5.3 (range, 3.2–8 years). All femoral windows achieved radiographic union by a mean of 7.2 weeks. At the latest point in follow-up the mean WOMAC score was 21.6 and femoral component survivorship was 100%. There were no intraoperative complications or additional revision surgery. Our proposed vascularised anterior windowing technique of the femur is a safe and reproducible method to remove the distal femoral cement and restrictor under direct vision without the need for perilous instruments. This method also preserves the proximal bone stock and provides the surgeon with the option of cemented stems over uncemented revision implants that predominantly rely on distal fixation

Introduction. Cemented stems have given good results with no difference in outcome when comparing taper slip and composite beam designs in short-term randomised trials. We aimed to ascertain differences in outcome between the different cemented design philosophies using a large-scale registry analysis. Materials and Methods. A retrospective cohort study of National Joint Registry of England and Wales (NJREW) was conducted. The study population included all primary total hip operations performed in the UK from 1 April 2003 to 31 September 2012. All cemented stems were identified and categorised as taper slip (polished) or composite beam (non-polished). Results. Non-polished stems accounted for 16.6% of all primary cemented hip replacements with polished stems making up the remainder. Mean age for non-polished stems was 73.0 years and 71.8 for the polished group (p<0.001) suggesting selection bias. There was a statistically significant increased chance of revision in the non-polished group compared with the polished group (p<0.001). Reasons for revision by fixation type:. Reason for revision. Total. Polished n=253667. Non-polished n=50661. N. %. n. %. Aseptic loosening stem. 532. 300. 0.12. 232. 0.46. Infection. 965. 735. 0.29. 230. 0.45. Stem lysis. 149. 99. 0.04. 50. 0.10. Cup lysis. 156. 125. 0.05. 31. 0.06. Malalignment stem. 114. 86. 0.03. 28. 0.06. The risk of aseptic loosening, stem lysis, malalignment and infection were several magnitudes higher for non-polished stems than for polished varieties (p<0.05). Discussion. Theoretical concerns are reflected in clinical practice with an increased incidence of revision for non-polished stems for all indications recorded. Conclusions. Incidence of revision is higher in cemented non-polished stems compared with polished designs

Objectives. Favourable results for collarless polished tapered stems have been reported, and cement creep due to taper slip may be a contributing factor. However, the ideal cement thickness around polished stems remains unknown. We investigated the influence of cement thickness on stem subsidence and cement creep. Methods. We cemented six collarless polished tapered (CPT) stems (two stems each of small, medium and large sizes) into composite femurs that had been reamed with a large CPT rasp to achieve various thicknesses of the cement mantle. Two or three tantalum balls were implanted in the proximal cement in each femur. A cyclic loading test was then performed for each stem. The migration of the balls was measured three-dimensionally, using a micro-computed tomography (CT) scanner, before and after loading. A digital displacement gauge was positioned at the stem shoulder, and stem subsidence was measured continuously by the gauge. Final stem subsidence was measured at the balls at the end of each stem. Results. A strong positive correlation was observed between mean cement thickness and stem subsidence in the CT slices on the balls. In the small stems, the balls moved downward to almost the same extent as the stem. There was a significant negative correlation between cement thickness and the horizontal:downward ratio of ball movement. Conclusion. Collarless polished tapered stems with thicker cement mantles resulted in greater subsidence of both stem and cement. This suggests that excessive thickness of the cement mantle may interfere with effective radial cement creep. Cite this article: E. Takahashi, A. Kaneuji, R. Tsuda, Y. Numata, T. Ichiseki, K. Fukui, N. Kawahara. The influence of cement thickness on stem subsidence and cement creep in a collarless polished tapered stem: When are thick cement mantles detrimental? Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–357. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0028.R1

The number of cemented femoral stems implanted in the United States continues to slowly decrease over time. Approximately 10% of all femoral components implanted today are cemented, and the majority are in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The European experience is quite different. In the UK, cemented femoral stems account for approximately 50% of all implants, while in the Swedish registry, cemented stems still account for the majority of implanted femoral components. Recent data demonstrating some limitations of uncemented fixation in the elderly for primary THA, may suggest that a cemented femoral component may be an attractive alternative in such a group. Two general philosophies exist with regards to the cemented femoral stem: Taper slip and Composite Beam. There are flagship implants representing both philosophies and select designs have shown excellent results past 30 years. A good femoral component design and cementing technique, however, is crucial for long-term clinical success. The author's personal preference is that of a “taper slip” design. The cemented Exeter stem has shown excellent results past 30 years with rare cases of loosening. The characteristic behavior of such a stem is to allow slight subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle through the process of cement creep. One or two millimeters of subsidence in the long-term have been observed with no detrimental clinical consequences. There have been ample results in the literature showing the excellent results at mid- and long-term in all patient groups. The author's current indication for a cemented stem include the elderly with no clear and definitive cutoff for age, most likely in females, THA for femoral neck fracture, small femoral canals such as those patients with DDH, and occasionally in patients with history of previous hip infection. Modern and impeccable cement technique is paramount for durable cemented fixation. It is important to remember that the goal is interdigitation of the cement with cancellous bone, so preparing the femur should not remove cancellous bone. Modern technique includes distal plugging of the femoral canal, pulsatile lavage, drying of the femoral canal with epinephrine or hydrogen peroxide, retrograde fill of the femoral canal with cement with appropriate suction and pressurization of the femoral cement into the canal prior to implantation of the femoral component. The dreaded “cement implantation syndrome” leading to sudden death can be avoided by appropriate fluid resuscitation prior to implanting the femoral component. This is an extremely rare occurrence today with reported mortality for the Exeter stem of 1 in 10,000. A cemented femoral component has been shown to be clinically successful at long term. Unfortunately, the art of cementing a femoral component has been lost and is rarely performed in the US. The number of cemented stems, unfortunately, may continue to go down as it is uncommonly taught in residency and fellowship, however, it might find a resurgence as the limits of uncemented fixation in the elderly are encountered. National joint registers support the use of cemented femoral components, and actually demonstrate higher survivorship at short term when compared to all other uncemented femoral components. A cemented femoral component should be in the hip surgeons armamentarium when treating patients undergoing primary and revision THA

Hip fractures pose a major global health challenge, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly among the elderly. With an ageing population, the incidence of these injuries is rising, exerting significant pressure on healthcare systems worldwide. Despite substantial research aimed at establishing best practice, several key areas remain the subject of ongoing debate. This article examines the latest evidence on the place of arthroplasty in the surgical treatment of hip fractures, with a particular focus on the choice of implant, the use of cemented versus uncemented fixation, and advances in perioperative care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1372–1376.

The number of cemented femoral stems implanted in the United States continues to slowly decrease over time. Approximately 10% of all femoral components implanted today are cemented, and the majority are in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The European experience is quite different, in the UK, cemented femoral stems account for approximately 50% of all implants, while in the Swedish registry, cemented stems still account for the majority of implanted femoral components. Recent data demonstrating some limitations of uncemented fixation in the elderly for primary THA, may suggest that a cemented femoral component may be an attractive alternative in such a group. Two general philosophies exist with regards to the cemented femoral stem: Taper slip and Composite Beam. There are flagship implants representing both philosophies and select designs have shown excellent results past 30 years. A good femoral component design and cementing technique, however, is crucial for long-term clinical success. The authors' personal preference is that of a “taper slip” design. The cemented Exeter stem has shown excellent results past 30 years with rare cases of loosening. The characteristic behavior of such a stem is to allow slight subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle through the process of cement creep. One or two millimeters of subsidence in the long-term have been observed with no detrimental clinical consequences. There have been ample results in the literature showing the excellent results at mid- and long-term in all patient groups. The authors' current indications for a cemented stem include the elderly with no clear and definitive cutoff for age, most likely in females, THA for femoral neck fracture, small femoral canals such as those patients with DDH, and occasionally in patients with history of previous hip infection. Modern and impeccable cement technique is paramount for durable cemented fixation. It is important to remember that the goal is interdigitation of the cement with cancellous bone, so preparing the femur should not remove cancellous bone. Modern technique includes distal plugging of the femoral canal, pulsatile lavage, drying of the femoral canal with epinephrine or hydrogen peroxide, retrograde fill of the femoral canal with cement with appropriate suction and pressurization of the femoral cement into the canal prior to implantation of the femoral component. The dreaded “cement implantation syndrome” leading to sudden death can be avoided by appropriate fluid resuscitation prior to implanting the femoral component. This is a extremely rare occurrence today with reported mortality for the Exeter stem of 1 in 10,000. A cemented femoral component has been shown to be clinically successful at long term. Unfortunately, the art of cementing a femoral component has been lost and is rarely performed in the US. The number of cemented stems unfortunately may continue to go down as it is uncommonly taught in residency and fellowship, however it might find a resurgence as the limits of uncemented fixation in the elderly are encountered. National joint registers support the use of cemented femoral components, and actually demonstrate higher survivorship at short term when compared to all other uncemented femoral components. A cemented femoral component should be in the hip surgeons' armamentarium when treating patients undergoing primary and revision THA

The June 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Machine learning to identify surgical candidates for hip and knee arthroplasty: a viable option?; Poor outcome after debridement and implant retention; Can you cement polyethylene liners into well-fixed acetabular shells in hip revision?; Revision stem in primary arthroplasties: the Exeter 44/0 125 mm stem; Depression and anxiety: could they be linked to infection?; Does where you live affect your outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasties?; Racial disparities in outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are substantially mediated by socioeconomic disadvantage both in black and white patients.

Aims

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) following hip arthroplasty are complex injuries. This study evaluates patient demographic characteristics, management, outcomes, and risk factors associated with PPF subtypes over a decade.