Objectives. The objective of this study was to assess all evidence comparing the Thompson monoblock hemiarthroplasty with modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip with respect to mortality and complications. Methods. A literature search was performed to identify all relevant literature. The population consisted of patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty of the hip for fracture. The intervention was hemiarthroplasty of the hip with a comparison between Thompson and modular unipolar prostheses. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PROSPERO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The study designs included were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), well designed case control studies and retrospective or prospective cohort studies. Studies available in any language, published at any time until September 2015 were considered. Studies were included if they contained mortality or complications. Results. The initial literature search identified 4757 items for examination. Four papers were included in the final review. The pooled odds ratio for mortality was 1.3 (95% confidence Interval 0.78 to 2.46) favouring modular designs. The pooled odds ratio for post-operative complications was 1.1 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.55) favouring modular designs. Outcomes were reported at 12 or six months. These papers all contained potential sources of bias and significant clinical heterogeneity. Conclusion. The current evidence comparing monoblock versus modular implants in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty is weak. Confidence intervals around the pooled odds ratios are broad and incorporate a value of one. Direct comparison of outcomes from these papers is fraught with difficulty and, as such, may well be misleading. A well designed randomised controlled trial would be helpful to inform evidence-based implant selection. Cite this article: A. L. Sims, A. J. Farrier, M. R. Reed, T. A. Sheldon. Thompson hemiarthroplasty versus modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip: A systematic review of the evidence. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–513. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.68.BJR-2016-0256.R1

Objectives. The Sliding Hip Screw (SHS) is commonly used to treat trochanteric hip fractures. Fixation failure is a devastating complication requiring complex revision surgery. One mode of fixation failure is lag screw cut-out which is greatest in unstable fracture patterns and when the tip-apex distance of the lag screw is > 25 mm. The X-Bolt Dynamic Hip Plating System (X-Bolt Orthopaedics, Dublin, Ireland) is a new device which aims to reduce this risk of cut-out. However, some surgeons have reported difficulty minimising the tip-apex distance with subsequent concerns that this may lead to an increased risk of cut-out. Patients and Methods. We measured the tip-apex distance from the intra-operative radiographs of 93 unstable trochanteric hip fractures enrolled in a randomised controlled trial (Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation, WHiTE One trial). Participants were treated with either the sliding hip screw or the X-Bolt dynamic hip plating system. We also recorded the incidence of cut-out in both groups, at a median follow-up time of 17 months. Results. There was a significantly increased tip-apex distance with the use of the X-Bolt (mean difference 3.7mm (95% confidence interval 1.58 to 5.73); SHS mean 17.1 mm, X-Bolt mean 20.8; p = 0.001. However, this was not associated with an increased incidence of cut-out at a median follow-up time of 17 months, with three cut-outs (6%) in the SHS group and 0 (0%) in the X-Bolt group. Conclusion. The X-Bolt is a safe implant with no increased risk for cut-out. Concerns about minimising the tip-apex distance may be justified but do not appear to be clinically important. Cite this article: M. A. Fernandez, A. Aquilina, J. Achten, N. Parsons, M. L. Costa, X. L. Griffin. The tip-apex distance in the X-Bolt dynamic plating system. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–207. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.64.BJR-2015-0016.R2

Objectives. High failure rates of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty implants have highlighted the need for more careful introduction and monitoring of new implants and for the evaluation of the safety of medical devices. The National Joint Registry and other regulatory services are unable to detect failing implants at an early enough stage. We aimed to identify validated surrogate markers of long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating surrogate markers for predicting long-term outcome in primary THA. Long-term outcome was defined as revision rate of an implant at ten years according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We conducted a search of Medline and Embase (OVID) databases. Separate search strategies were devised for the Cochrane database and Google Scholar. Each search was performed to include articles from the date of their inception to June 8, 2015. Results. Our search strategy identified 1082 studies of which 115 studies were included for full article review. Following review, 17 articles were found that investigated surrogate markers of long-term outcome. These included one systematic review, one randomised control trial (RCT), one case control study and 13 case series. Validated surrogate markers included Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) and Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse (EBRA), each measuring implant migration and wear. We identified five RSA studies (one systematic review and four case series) and four EBRA studies (one RCT and three case series). Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) at six months have been investigated but have not been validated against long-term outcomes. Conclusions. This systematic review identified two validated surrogate markers of long-term primary THA outcome: RSA and EBRA, each measuring implant migration and wear. We recommend the consideration of RSA in the pre-market testing of new implants. EBRA can be used to investigate acetabular wear but not femoral migration. Further studies are needed to validate the use of PROMs for post-market surveillance. Cite this article: T. T. Malak, J. A. J. Broomfield, A. J. R. Palmer, S. Hopewell, A. Carr, C. Brown, D. Prieto-Alhambra, S. Glyn-Jones. Surrogate markers of long-term outcome in primary total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:206–214. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.2000568

Objective

Hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip dysplasia is controversial in the orthopaedic community, as the outcome literature has been variable and inconclusive. We hypothesise that outcomes of hip arthroscopy may be diminished in the setting of hip dysplasia, but outcomes may be acceptable in milder or borderline cases of hip dysplasia.

Objectives

The annual incidence of hip fracture is 620 000 in the European Union. The cost of this clinical problem has been estimated at 1.75 million disability-adjusted life years lost, equating to 1.4% of the total healthcare burden in established market economies. Recent guidance from The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) states that research into the clinical and cost effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) as a treatment for hip fracture is a priority. We asked the question: can a trial investigating THA for hip fracture currently be delivered in the NHS?

Aims

Femoroacetabular Junction Impingement (FAI) describes abnormalities in the shape of the femoral head–neck junction, or abnormalities in the orientation of the acetabulum. In the short term, FAI can give rise to pain and disability, and in the long-term it significantly increases the risk of developing osteoarthritis. The Femoroacetabular Impingement Trial (FAIT) aims to determine whether operative or non-operative intervention is more effective at improving symptoms and preventing the development and progression of osteoarthritis.

Objectives

The number of surgical procedures performed each year to treat femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) continues to rise. Although there is evidence that surgery can improve symptoms in the short-term, there is no evidence that it slows the development of osteoarthritis (OA). We performed a feasibility study to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing operative with non-operative treatment for FAI.

The aim of this review is to evaluate the current available literature evidencing on peri-articular hip endoscopy (the third compartment). A comprehensive approach has been set on reports dealing with endoscopic surgery for recalcitrant trochanteric bursitis, snapping hip (or coxa-saltans; external and internal), gluteus medius and minimus tears and endoscopy (or arthroscopy) after total hip arthroplasty. This information can be used to trigger further research, innovation and education in extra-articular hip endoscopy.