Current evidence suggests that we should be moving away from Thompson's hemiarthroplasties for patients with intracapsular hip fractures. Furthermore, the use of cement when inserting these prostheses is controversial. This study aims to show the Inverness experience.

We performed a retrospective review of all NHS Highland patients who underwent a hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular neck of femur fracture over the last 15 years. Demographics and the use of cement were documented. Further analysis of this group was performed to identify any of these patients who required revision of their prosthesis. Patients requiring revision had their case-notes reviewed to identify the cause for further surgery.

From 1996 until present 2221 patients from the Highland area had a hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular neck of femur fracture. 1708 where female (77%) and 513 male (23%). The ages ranged from 28 years to 104 years (mean 80 years, median 81). 2180 of this group had their operations in Raigmore Hospital with the remaining 41 at various centres throughout Scotland. 623 (28%)had a cemented hemiarthroplasty, with the remaining 1578 (72%) having an uncemented Thompson's hemiarthroplasty. The revision rate for the cemented group was 2% (13 of 623 patients). In the uncemented group it was 0.4% (6 of 1578). Reasons from revision included dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, infection and pain.

Current evidence from some joint registers regarding the use of Thompson's hemiarthroplasty in the elderly is discouraging. The use of bone cement in this group with multiple co-morbidities is not without it's risks. Our data suggests that uncemented Thompson's hemiarthroplasties in low demand elderly patients with multiple co-morbidities can yield excellent results with less risk to the patients.

Aims. The aim of this investigation was to compare risk of infection in both cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) as well as in total hip arthroplasty (THA) following femoral neck fracture. Methods. Data collection was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). In HA and THA following femoral neck fracture, fixation method was divided into cemented and uncemented prostheses and paired according to age, sex, BMI, and the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index using Mahalanobis distance matching. Results. Overall in 13,612 cases of intracapsular femoral neck fracture, 9,110 (66.9%) HAs and 4,502 (33.1%) THAs were analyzed. Infection rate in HA was significantly reduced in cases with use of antibiotic-loaded cement compared with uncemented fixated prosthesis (p = 0.013). In patients with THA no statistical difference between cemented and uncemented prosthesis was registered, however after one year 2.4% of infections were detected in uncemented and 2.1% in cemented THA. In the subpopulation of HA after one year, 1.9% of infections were registered in cemented and 2.8% in uncemented HA. BMI (p = 0.001) and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (p < 0.003) were identified as risk factors of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), while in THA cemented prosthesis also demonstrated an increased risk within the first 30 days (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.73; p = 0.010). Conclusion. The rate of infection after intracapsular femoral neck fracture was statistically significantly reduced in patients treated by antibiotic-loaded cemented HA. Particularly for patients with multiple risk factors for the development of a PJI, the usage of antibiotic-loaded bone cement seems to be a reasonable procedure for prevention of infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):331–338

Aim. This paper describes the methods applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty among hip fracture patients in the World Hip Trauma Evaluation Five (WHiTE5) trial. Methods. A within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be conducted at four months postinjury from a health system (National Health Service and personal social services) perspective. Resource use pertaining to healthcare utilization (i.e. inpatient care, physiotherapy, social care, and home adaptations), and utility measures (quality-adjusted life years) will be collected at one and four months (primary outcome endpoint) postinjury; only treatment of complications will be captured at 12 months. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Conclusion. The planned analysis strategy described here records our intent to conduct a within-trial CUA alongside the WHiTE5 trial

Aims. Cemented hemiarthroplasty is an effective form of treatment for most patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip. However, it remains unclear whether there are subgroups of patients who may benefit from the alternative operation of a modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty – the aim of this study was to investigate this issue. Knowledge about the heterogeneity of treatment effects is important for surgeons in order to target operations towards specific subgroups who would benefit the most. Methods. We used causal forest analysis to compare subgroup- and individual-level treatment effects between cemented and modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty in patients aged > 60 years with an intracapsular fracture of the hip, using data from the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) multicentre randomized clinical trial. EuroQol five-dimension index scores were used to measure health-related quality of life at one, four, and 12 months postoperatively. Results. Our analysis revealed a complex landscape of responses to the use of a cemented hemiarthroplasty in the 12 months after surgery. There was heterogeneity of effects with regard to baseline characteristics, including age, pre-injury health status, and lifestyle factors such as alcohol consumption. This heterogeneity was greater at the one-month mark than at subsequent follow-up timepoints, with particular regard to subgroups based on age. However, for all subgroups, the effect estimates for quality of life lay within the confidence intervals derived from the analysis of all patients. Conclusion. The use of a cemented hemiarthroplasty is expected to increase health-related quality of life compared with modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty for all subgroups of patients aged > 60 years with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):656–661

Aim. The aim of this investigation was to compare risk of infection in both cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty (HA) as well as total hip arthroplasty (THA) following femoral neck fracture. Methods. Data collection was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) In HA and THA following femoral neck fracture fixation method was divided into cemented and cementless protheses and paired according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and the Elixhauser score using Mahalanobis distance matching. Results. Overall in 13,612 cases of intracapsular femoral neck fracture, with 9,110 (66.9 %) HAs and 4502 (33.1 %) THAs were analyzed. Infection rate in HA was significantly reduced in cases with use of antibiotic-loaded cement compared to cementless fixated prosthesis (p=0.013). In patients with THA no statistical difference between cemented and cementless prothesis was registered, however after one year 2.4 % of infections were detected in cementless and 2.1 % in cemented THA. In the subpopulation of HA after one year 1.9 % of infections were registered in cemented and 2.8 % in cementless HA. BMI (p=0.001) and Elixhauser-Comorbidity-Score (p<0.003) were identified as risk factors of PJI, while in THA also cemented prosthesis demonstrated within the first 30 days an increased risk (HR=2.728; p=0.010). Conclusion. The rate of infection after intracapsular femoral neck fracture was significantly reduced in patients treated by antibiotic-loaded cemented hemiarthroplasty. In particular for patients with multiple risk factors for the development of a PJI the usage of antibiotic-loaded bone cement seems to be a reasonable procedure for prevention of infection

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Background. In 2011 20% of intracapsular fractured neck of femurs were treated with an uncemented hemiarthroplasty in the English NHS. National guidelines recommend cemented implants, based on evidence of less pain, better mobility and lower costs. We aimed to compare complications following cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty using the national hospital episode statistics (HES) database in England. Methods. Dislocation, revision, return to theatre and medical complications were extracted for all patients with NOF fracture who underwent either cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty between January 2005 and December 2008. To make a ‘like for like’ comparison all 30424 patients with an uncemented impant were matched to 30424 cemented implants (from a total of 42838) in terms of age, sex and Charlson co-morbidity score. Results. In patients with an uncemented implant, 18-month revision (1.62% versus 0.57% (OR 2.90 [2.44–3.45], p< 0.001)), 4-year revision (2.45% vs 1.11% (OR 2.28 [1.45–3.65], p< 0.001)) and 30-day chest infection (8.14% versus 7.23% (OR 1.14 [1.08–1.21], p=0.028)) were significantly higher. Interestingly, 4-year dislocation rate was higher in cemented implants (0.60% versus 0.26% (OR 0.45 [0.36–0.55], p< 0.001). No significant differences were seen in 30-day return to theatre, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event or 90-day pulmonary embolus. Discussion. In this national analysis of matched patients short and medium term revision rate, and perioperative chest infection was significantly higher in the uncemented group. This supports the published evidence and national guidelines recommending cement fixation of hemiarthroplasty

Continued controversy exists between cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular hip fracture. To assist in resolving this controversy, 400 patients were randomised between a cemented polished tapered stem hemiarthroplasty and an uncemented Furlong hydroxyapatite coated hemiarthroplasty. Follow-up was by a nurse blinded to the implant used for up to three years from surgery. Results indicate no difference in the pain scores between implants but a tendency to an improved regain of mobility for those treated with the cemented arthroplasty (1.2 score versus 1.7 at 6 months, p=0.03). There was no difference in early mortality but a tendency to a higher later mortality for the uncemented implants (29% versus 24% at one year, p=0.3). Later peri-prosthetic fracture was more common in the uncemented group (3% versus 1.5%). Revision arthroplasty was required for 2% of cemented cases and 3% of uncemented cases. Surgery for an uncemented hemiarthroplasty was 5 minutes shorter but these patients were more likely to need a blood transfusion (14% versus 7%). Three patients in the cemented group had a major adverse reaction to bone cement leading to their death. These results indicated that a cemented stem hemiarthroplasty give marginally improved regain of mobility in comparison to a contemporary uncemented hemiarthroplasty. An uncemented hemiarthroplasty still has a place for those considered to be at a high risk of bone cement implantation syndrome

Introduction. Cemented hemiarthroplasty for neck of femur fractures has been advocated over uncemented hemiarthroplasty due to better post-operative recovery and patient satisfaction. However, studies have shown adverse effects of bone cement on the cardio-respiratory system which may lead to higher morbidity and mortality. Therefore, in some institutes, the use of an uncemented prosthesis has been adopted for patients with a high number of co-morbidities. The aim was to compare early mortality rates for cemented vs. uncemented hemiarthroplasties. Method. Cohort study of displaced intracapsular hip fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty between 1999–2009 at one institute. A total of 3094 hemiarthroplasties performed; out of which 1002(32.4%) were cemented and 2092(67.6%) were uncemented. 48hour and 30day mortality rates for the two groups were compared and a multivariate Cox regression model used to eliminate confounding factors. Significant confounding factor included age, sex, mini mental test score, medical co-morbidities, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and delay to surgery. Results. The study showed that, after eliminating confounding factors, 48hour mortality in the cemented group was 0.3% compared to 0.5% in the uncemented group (p=0.388). However, the adjusted 30day mortality rate for the cemented group (4%) was shown to be significantly lower than for the uncemented group (10.8%) (p< 0.001). Conclusion. The use of cement in hip hemiarthroplasty is not associated with an increased rate of mortality at 48hours or at 30days. Along with emerging evidence of better post-op recovery and patient satisfaction with the use of a cemented prosthesis, we support the use of cement for all patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty

Introduction. The treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients is under debate. Hemiarthroplasty is a recognised treatment for elderly patients with reduced capacity for mobilisation. Controversy exists around cemented or uncemented implants for hemiarthroplasty in this population. The aim of this study is to investigate outcomes of cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty implants to two years post operation. Methods. All elderly patients presenting to one institution with a displaced subcapital neck of femur fracture were offered inclusion. One hundred and sixty patients (mean age, 85 years) with acute displaced femoral neck fractures were randomly allocated to be treated with cemented Exeter, or uncemented Zweymüller Alloclassic Hemiarthroplasty. Clinical and radiologic follow-up to two years with the main outcome measurements being pain, mortality, mobility, complications, reoperations, and quality of life using validated scores recorded by a blinded outcome assessor. Results. Complication rates were more frequent in uncemented implants (p< 0.016). Subsidence and perioperative fracture were significantly higher with uncemented components (p< 0.05). Visual analogue pain scores at rest were not significantly different between each group. Mortality rates were not significantly different at any time point. Oxford Hip scores at 6 weeks favoured cemented implants (p< 0.05). These trends persist but are not significant at later follow-up. Mobility measured by a timed up-and-go score favoured cemented at 6 weeks (p< 0.01), 6 months (p< 0.05) and 1 year (p< 0.005). A trend towards less dependence on walking aids also favoured cemented implants. Multifunctional assessment index and Mini-mental scores were similar in each group. Conclusion. Cemented hemiarthroplasty provides a better outcome for elderly patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture when compared with uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Complication rates were significantly lower and function and pain scores were improved at multiple time points following surgery

Purpose: The appropriate means of fixation for hemiarthroplasty of the hip is a matter of ongoing debate. Proponents of uncemented components cite the risk of perioperative mortality with cement implantation as justification for avoiding cement in certain patients. Because cement-related mortality is rare, we wished to compare the incidence of perioperative mortality in patients receiving cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty using a large national database. Further, we wished to compare overall revision rate between fixation methods to assess their role in implant survivorship. Method: All recorded hemiarthroplasty cases from the AOA National Joint Replacement Registry were cross-referenced to the Australian mortality data, and deaths at 1d, 7d, 28d, and one year were compared between groups. Further, subgroup analysis of monoblock, modular, and bipolar hemiarthroplasty were compared as a surrogate measure of different patient populations. Results: Comparing all hemiarthroplasty procedures as a group, there was a a significantly increased mortality rate at day one post-operatively (p = 0.0005) when cement was used. By day 7, this trend reversed, revealing a reduced mortality risk with cement (p = 0.02). This trend reversal persisted at day 28 and one year post-operatively (p = 0.028 & p < 0.0001, respectively). With subgroup analysis, monoblock hemiarthroplasty revealed a similar trend reversal in early versus late mortality. Modular and bipolar hemiarthroplasty procedures failed to reveal a significant difference in mortality when cemented and uncemented components were compared at all time points. When fixation method was compared in different age groups, a favourable mortality rate was seen at one year when cemented monoblock components were used in patients aged 71–80, and in patients ≥81 years old (p = 0.005 & < 0.001, respectively). The opposite was true with cemented modular implants at one year in patients < 70 years old (p = 0.009). There was no significant difference in mortality between cemented and uncemented implants in any other age investigated. Revision rates were significantly higher in patients treated with uncemented hemiarthroplasty regardless of prosthesis type. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a higher overall success rate, and comparable or reduced long-term mortality risk when cement is used in hip hemiarthroplasty

Aims

The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of reoperation (all cause and specifically for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF)) and mortality, and associated risk factors, following a hemiarthroplasty incorporating a cemented collarless polished taper slip stem (PTS) for management of an intracapsular hip fracture.

Aims

Despite multiple trials and case series on hip hemiarthroplasty designs, guidance is still lacking on which implant to use. One particularly deficient area is long-term outcomes. We present over 1,000 consecutive cemented Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties over a ten-year period, recording all accessible patient and implant outcomes.

Aims

A systematic literature review focusing on how long before surgery concurrent viral or bacterial infections (respiratory and urinary infections) should be treated in hip fracture patients, and if there is evidence for delaying this surgery.