Cemented versus uncemented total hip replacement for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a retrospective, multicentre study with a mean 5-year follow-up

Table 2 Long-term follow-up: functional outcomes

Month(s) postoperatively	CTR^a (n = 132)	UTR^b (n = 136)	p value
1	80.22 ± 7.16	79.74 ± 8.32	0.261
3	83.86 ± 8.24	84.23 ± 9.51	0.206
6	88.46 ± 10.57	87.74 ± 11.29	0.157
12	89.36 ± 10.09	89.51 ± 10.26	0.132
24	87.43 ± 10.56	86.31 ± 11.21	0.127
36	85.21 ± 9.33	84.27 ± 8.84	0.102
37	84.77 ± 15.27	82.43 ± 16.15	0.045*
48	81.47 ± 17.29	78.41 ± 18.39	0.031*
49	81.22 ± 18.36	78.34 ± 19.23	0.029*
51	80.53 ± 19.26	76.45 ± 18.36	0.025*
54	80.12 ± 17.64	76.16 ± 16.65	0.022*
60	79.45 ± 17.36	74.67 ± 15.49	0.014*
Final follow-up	79.39 ± 16.92	74.18 ± 17.55	0.011*

CTR cemented total hip replacement, UTR uncemented total hip replacement, HHS Harris hip score
^aExeter Universal stem combined with the All-poly cup (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ)
^bTaperloc stem (Biomet, Warsaw, IN) combined with a ram-extruded bar stock polyethylene cup (GUR 415; Hoechst Celanese Corp, Houston, TX)
*Statistically significant values

ISSN: 1749-799X