Direct comparison between bilaterally implanted cemented and uncemented total hip replacements in six patients

Area of Science:

• Orthopedic Surgery
• Biomaterials Science

Background:

• Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common procedure for hip joint conditions.
• Both cemented and ingrowth (uncemented) prostheses are widely used, each with distinct fixation mechanisms.
• Early comparative studies are crucial for understanding long-term outcomes and patient preferences.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasties using ingrowth versus cemented prostheses.
• To evaluate patient preference, pain levels, and functional ability between the two types of hip arthroplasty.

Main Methods:

• Six patients underwent simultaneous bilateral THA, with one hip receiving an ingrowth prosthesis and the contralateral hip a cemented prosthesis.
• Clinical and radiographic assessments were conducted for up to three years post-surgery.
• Patient-reported outcomes including pain, limp, range of motion, and functional ability were recorded.

Main Results:

• No significant functional difference or difference in range of motion was observed between the two types of prostheses.
• All patients preferred the cemented hip arthroplasty due to reduced pain and absence of a limp.
• The ingrowth hip arthroplasty group reported slightly higher pain levels and poorer walking ability compared to the cemented group.

Conclusions:

• Ingrowth (uncemented) hip arthroplasty is functionally equivalent to cemented hip arthroplasty.
• Cemented hip arthroplasty offers superior patient comfort, with less pain and limping.
• Further investigation into the long-term efficacy and patient-reported outcomes of ingrowth prostheses is warranted.