Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the current pathways of care for patients with a fracture of the hip in five low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in South Asia (Nepal and Sri Lanka) and Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines).

Background. Approximately half of all hip fractures are displaced intracapsular fractures. The standard treatment for these fractures is either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on hip fracture management recommends the use of ‘proven’ cemented stem arthroplasty with an Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of at least 3B (97% survival at three years). The Thompsons prosthesis is currently lacking an ODEP rating despite over 50 years of clinical use, likely due to the paucity of implant survival data. Nationally, adherence to these guidelines is varied as there is debate as to which prosthesis optimises patient outcomes. Design. This study design is a multi-centre, multi-surgeon, parallel, two arm, standard-of-care pragmatic randomised controlled trial. It will be embedded within the WHiTE Comprehensive Cohort Study (ISRCTN63982700). The main analysis is a two-way equivalence comparison between Hemi-Thompson and Hemi-Exeter polished taper with Unitrax head. Secondary outcomes will include radiological leg length discrepancy measured as per Bidwai and Willett, mortality, re-operation rate and indication for re-operation, length of index hospital stay and revision at four months. This study will be supplemented by the NHFD (National Hip Fracture Database) dataset. Discussion. Evidence on the optimum choice of prosthesis for hemiarthroplasty of the hip is lacking. National guidance is currently based on expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. The incidence of hip fracture is likely to continue to increase and providing high quality evidence on the optimum treatment will improve patient outcomes and have important health economic implications. Cite this article: A. L. Sims. The World Hip Trauma Evaluation Study 3: Hemiarthroplasty Evaluation by Multicentre Investigation – WH. I. TE 3: HEMI – An Abridged Protocol. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:18–25. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.51.2000473

Aims. This study aimed to compare the change in health-related quality of life of patients receiving a traditional cemented monoblock Thompson hemiarthroplasty compared with a modern cemented modular polished-taper stemmed hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Patients and Methods. This was a pragmatic, multicentre, multisurgeon, two-arm, parallel group, randomized standard-of-care controlled trial. It was embedded within the WHiTE Comprehensive Cohort Study. The sample size was 964 patients. The setting was five National Health Service Trauma Hospitals in England. A total of 964 patients over 60 years of age who required hemiarthroplasty of the hip between February 2015 and March 2016 were included. A standardized measure of health outcome, the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, was carried out on admission and at four months following the operation. Results. Of the 964 patients enrolled, 482 died or were lost to follow-up (50%). No significant differences were noted in EQ-5D between groups, with a mean difference at four months of 0.037 in favour of the Exeter/Unitrax implant (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.014 to 0.087, p = 0.156), rising to 0.045 (95% CI 0.007 to 0.098, p = 0.09) when patients who died were excluded. The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D-5L used in this study is 0.08, therefore any benefit between implants is unlikely to be noticeable to the patient. There was no difference in mortality or mobility score. Conclusion. Allowing for the high rate of loss to follow-up, the use of the traditional Thompson hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of the displaced intracapsular hip fracture shows no difference in health outcome when compared with a modern cemented hemiarthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:352–60

Aims

Patients receiving cemented hemiarthroplasties after hip fracture have a significant risk of deep surgical site infection (SSI). Standard UK practice to minimize the risk of SSI includes the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement with no consensus regarding type, dose, or antibiotic content of the cement. This is the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of high dose dual antibiotic-loaded cement in comparison to low dose single antibiotic-loaded cement in patients 60 years and over receiving a cemented hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular hip fracture.

Fractures of the proximal femur are one of the greatest challenges facing the medical community, constituting a heavy socioeconomic burden worldwide. The National Hip Fracture Audit currently provides a framework for service evaluation. This evaluation is based upon the assessment of process rather than assessment of patient-centred outcome and therefore it fails to provide meaningful data regarding the clinical effectiveness of treatments. This study aims to capture data from the cohort of patients who present with a fracture of the proximal femur at a single United Kingdom Major Trauma Centre. Patient-centred outcomes will be recorded and provide a baseline cohort within which to test the clinical effectiveness of experimental interventions.