Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 8 | Pages 506 - 513
1 Aug 2017
Sims AL Farrier AJ Reed MR Sheldon TA

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


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 8 | Pages 338 - 346
1 Aug 2016
MacLeod AR Sullivan NPT Whitehouse MR Gill HS

Objectives

Modular junctions are ubiquitous in contemporary hip arthroplasty. The head-trunnion junction is implicated in the failure of large diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) hips which are the currently the topic of one the largest legal actions in the history of orthopaedics (estimated costs are stated to exceed $4 billion). Several factors are known to influence the strength of these press-fit modular connections. However, the influence of different head sizes has not previously been investigated. The aim of the study was to establish whether the choice of head size influences the initial strength of the trunnion-head connection.

Materials and Methods

Ti-6Al-4V trunnions (n = 60) and two different sizes of cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) heads (28 mm and 36 mm; 30 of each size) were used in the study. Three different levels of assembly force were considered: 4 kN; 5 kN; and 6 kN (n = 10 each). The strength of the press-fit connection was subsequently evaluated by measuring the pull-off force required to break the connection. The statistical differences in pull-off force were examined using a Kruskal–Wallis test and two-sample Mann–Whitney U test. Finite element and analytical models were developed to understand the reasons for the experimentally observed differences.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 2, Issue 11 | Pages 248 - 254
1 Nov 2013
McHugh GA Campbell M Luker KA

Objectives

To investigate psychosocial and biomedical outcomes following total hip replacement (THR) and to identify predictors of recovery from THR.

Methods

Patients with osteoarthritis (OA) on the waiting list for primary THR in North West England were assessed pre-operatively and at six and 12 months post-operatively to investigate psychosocial and biomedical outcomes. Psychosocial outcomes were anxiety and depression, social support and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Biomedical outcomes were pain, physical function and stiffness. The primary outcome was the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Total Physical Function. Potential predictors of outcome were age, sex, body mass index, previous joint replacement, involvement in the decision for THR, any comorbidities, any complications, type of medication, and pre-operative ENRICHD Social Support Instrument score, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scores and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index score.