“…The first, the Registro dell'implantologia Protesica Ortopedica (Register of the Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants), known as the RIPO Report from the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy, reports the rates of revision for THA from 2000 to 2013; the rate of revision for cementless THA was higher than for cemented THA for aseptic loosening of the femoral stem, recurrent dislocation/subluxation, and periprosthetic fracture (Table 2) [37]. The difference in revision rates for recurrent dislocation and/or subluxation was very small (cementless: 16.8% vs cemented: 16.0%); dislocation of THA is somewhat dependent on surgical accuracy and may be less influenced by fixation [40]. The second, from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, found similar results; revision for aseptic loosening, dislocation, and periprosthetic fracture was higher for cementless THA (Table 3); again, the smallest difference was for revision due to dislocation [38].…”