Surgical interventions consisting of internal
fixation (IF) or total hip replacement (THR) are required to restore
patient mobility after hip fractures. Conventionally, this decision
was based solely upon the degree of fracture displacement. However,
in the last ten years, there has been a move to incorporate patient
characteristics into the decision making process. Research demonstrating
that joint replacement renders superior functional results when compared
with IF, in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, has
swayed the pendulum in favour of THR. However, a high risk of dislocation
has always been the concern. Fortunately, there are newer technologies
and alternative surgical approaches that can help reduce the risk
of dislocation. The authors propose an algorithm for the treatment
of femoral neck fractures: if minimally displaced, in the absence
of hip joint arthritis, IF should be performed; if arthritis is
present, or the fracture is displaced, then THR is preferred. Cite this article:
Surface hip replacement (SHR) is generally used
in younger, active patients as an alternative conventional total
hip replacement in part because of the ability to preserve femoral
bone. This major benefit of surface replacement will only hold true
if revision procedures of SHRs are found to provide good clinical
results. A retrospective review of SHR revisions between 2007 and 2012
was presented, and the type of revision and aetiologies were recorded.
There were 55 SHR revisions, of which 27 were in women. At a mean
follow-up of 2.3 years (0.72 to 6.4), the mean post-operative Harris
hip score (HHS) was 94.8 (66 to 100). Overall 23 were revised for mechanical
reasons, nine for impingement, 13 for metallosis, nine for unexplained
pain and one for sepsis. Of the type of revision surgery performed,
14 were femoral-only revisions; four were acetabular-only revisions,
and 37 were complete revisions. We did not find that clinical scores were significantly different
between gender or different types of revisions. However, the mean
post-operative HHS was significantly lower in patients revised for
unexplained pain compared with patients revised for mechanical reasons
(86.9 (66 to 100) Based on the overall clinical results, we believe that revision
of SHR can have good or excellent results and warrants a continued
use of the procedure in selected patients. Close monitoring of these
patients facilitates early intervention, as we believe that tissue
damage may be related to the duration of an ongoing problem. There
should be a low threshold to revise a surface replacement if there
is component malposition, rising metal ion levels, or evidence of
soft-tissue abnormalities. Cite this article:
