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.

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.

NICE Guidelines suggest patients should be offered a Total Hip Replacement (THR) rather than Hemiarthroplasty for a displaced intracapsular hip fracture. We investigated outcomes of patients aged 40–65 who received a THR or Hemiarthroplasty following a traumatic intracapsular hip fracture and had either high-risk (Group 1) or low-risk (Group 2) alcohol consumption (>14 or <14 units/week respectively). This was a retrospective study (April 2008 – December 2018) evaluating patients who underwent THR or Hemiarthroplasty in Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Atraumatic injuries, acetabular fractures, patients with previous procedures on the affected side and those lost to follow up were excluded. Analysis of length of admission, dislocation risk, periprosthetic fractures, infection risk, and mortality was conducted between both cohorts. Survival time post-operatively of Group 1 patients with a THR (61.9 months) and Hemiarthroplasty (42.3 months) were comparable to Group 2 patients with a THR (59 months) and Hemiarthroplasty(42.4 months). Group 1 patients with THR had increased risk of dislocation (12.9%; p=0.04) compared to those that received Hemiarthroplasty (2.5%). Group 1 Hemiarthroplasty patients had increased wound infection risk (11.6%) compared to Group 2 (3.7%). In conclusion, we found that amongst our population the life expectancy of a post-operative patient was short irrespective of whether they had high or low-risk alcohol consumption. A hip fracture may represent increased frailty in our study population. The Group 1 THR cohort presented a higher risk of hip dislocation and periprosthetic fracture. With this in mind, Hemiarthroplasty is a more cost-effective and shorter operation which produces similar results

The February 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Trial of vancomycin and cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis in arthroplasty; Is preoperative posterior femoral neck tilt a risk factor for fixation failure? Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip; Periprosthetic fractures in larger hydroxyapatite-coated stems: are collared stems a better alternative for total hip arthroplasty?; Postoperative periprosthetic fracture following hip arthroplasty with a polished taper slip versus composite beam stem; Is oral tranexamic acid as good as intravenous?; Stem design and the risk of early periprosthetic femur fractures following THA in elderly patients; Does powered femoral broaching compromise patient safety in total hip arthroplasty?

Aims. To compare the cost-effectiveness of high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement versus single-antibiotic cement for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. Methods. Using data from a multicentre randomized controlled trial (World Hip Trauma Evaluation 8 (WHiTE-8)) in the UK, a within-trial economic evaluation was conducted. Resource usage was measured over 120 days post randomization, and cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), gained from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective in the base-case analysis. Methodological uncertainty was addressed using sensitivity analysis, while decision uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results. The base-case analysis showed that high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement had a significantly higher mean cost (£224 (95% confidence interval (CI) -408 to 855)) and almost the same QALYs (0.001 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.003)) relative to single-antibiotic cement from the UK NHS and PSS perspective. The probability of the high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement being cost-effective was less than 0.3 at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds, and its net monetary benefit was negative. This finding remained robust in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. This study shows that high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement is unlikely to be cost-effective compared to single-antibiotic cement for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1070–1077

The February 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Total hip arthroplasty or internal fixation for hip fracture?; Significant deterioration in quality of life and increased frailty in patients waiting more than six months for total hip or knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional multicentre study; Long-term cognitive trajectory after total joint arthroplasty; Costal cartilage grafting for a large osteochondral lesion of the femoral head; Foley catheters not a problem in the short term; Revision hips still a mortality burden?; How to position implants with a robotic arm; Uncemented stems in hip fracture?

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. Methods. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted based on data collected from the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK. Resource use was measured over 12 months post-randomization using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the NHS and personal social service perspective. Methodological uncertainty was addressed using sensitivity analysis, while decision uncertainty was represented graphically using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results. The base-case analysis showed that cemented implants were cost-saving (mean cost difference -£961 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£2,292 to £370)) and increased QALYs (mean QALY difference 0.010 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.017)) when compared to uncemented implants. The probability of the cemented implant being cost-effective approximated between 95% and 97% at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds held by decision-makers, and its net monetary benefit was positive. The findings remained robust against all the pre-planned sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. This study shows that cemented HA is cost-effective compared with hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA in older adults with displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):922–928

Aims

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the mortality, morbidity, and functional outcomes of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of intracapsular hip fractures, analyzing contemporary and non-contemporary implants separately.

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.

Introduction. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is indicated in independently mobile patients sustaining displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Studies presently suggest that the anterolateral approach is preferable to the posterior approach due to a perceived reduced risk of reoperations and dislocations. However, these observations come from small studies with short follow-up. We assessed whether surgical approach in THA performed for hip fractures effects outcomes. Patients and Methods. A retrospective observational study was performed using data collected prospectively by the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All primary stemmed THAs implanted for hip fractures between 2003–2015 were eligible for inclusion (n=19,432). The two surgical approach groups (posterior versus anterolateral) were propensity-score matched for multiple potential patient and surgical confounding factors (n=14,536, with 7,268/group). Outcomes (implant survival, patient survival, intraoperative complications) were compared between the approach groups using regression analysis. Results. Five-year implant survival rates were similar between posterior and anterolateral approaches (97.3% vs. 97.4%; sub-hazard ratio (SHR)=1.15 (95% CI 0.93–1.42)). Five-year implant survival rates free from revision for dislocation (SHR=1.28 (CI=0.89–1.84)) and free from revision for periprosthetic fracture (SHR=1.03 (CI=0.68–1.56)) were also comparable. Thirty-day patient survival was significantly higher with a posterior approach (99.5% vs. 98.8%; hazard ratio (HR)=0.44 (CI=0.30–0.64)), which persisted at 1-year (HR=0.73 (CI=0.64–0.84)) and 5-years (HR=0.87 (CI=0.81–0.94)). The posterior approach had a lower risk of intraoperative complications (odds ratio=0.59 (CI=0.45–0.78)). Discussion. This is the largest study assessing the influence of surgical approach on outcomes following THA performed for hip fractures. In THA for hip fractures, the posterior approach had a similar risk of revision, and a lower risk of mortality and intraoperative complications compared with the anterolateral approach. Conclusion. We propose that the posterior approach is safer than the anterolateral approach when performing THA for hip fractures and should be preferred where possible

Background. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly used for active patients with displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Dislocation rates in this cohort remain high postoperatively compared to elective practice, yet it remains unclear which patients are most at risk. The aim of this study was to determine the dislocation rate for these patients and to evaluate the contributing patient and surgeon factors. Methods. A five-year retrospective analysis of all patients receiving THA for displaced intracapsular hip fractures from 2013–18 was performed. Data was collected from the institutions' hip fracture database, including data submitted to the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD). Cox regression analysis and log-rank tests were implemented to evaluate factors associated with THA dislocation. Patient age, sex, ASA grade, surgeon seniority, surgical approach, femoral head diameter and acetabular cup type were all investigated as independent factors. Results. A total of 196 patients, with a mean age of 72 (range 49–90), received THA for hip fracture between 2013–18. A posterior approach, using standard cemented acetabular components and a 28mm femoral head, was used in 133 cases (72%). Fourteen dislocations (7%) were observed during this period, with 5 patients requiring revision surgery. Of these dislocations, all were performed through posterior approaches with standard cemented cups. 28mm femoral heads were used in all cases except one, which used a 32mm femoral head. In Cox regression analysis, ASA grade, but not age or sex, was significantly associated with dislocation (hazard ratio = 4.5; 95% confidence interval 2.0–10.0; p<0.001). On log rank testing no statistically, significant association was found between dislocation and surgeon grade (p=0.85), surgical approach (p=0.31), femoral head size (p=0.85) or cup type (p=0.30). Discussion. This study demonstrates an increased risk of dislocation following THA for hip fracture with higher ASA grades. It may be appropriate to offer more stable implants to this cohort of patients

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

Evidence suggests as little as 32percnt; of those with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture who meet the NICE eligibility criteria currently undergo a total hip replacement (THR). The reason for this discrepancy is not clear. This study therefore set out to examine the reasons behind this lack of adherence to these guidelines through the use of a questionnaire to current Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery consultants across Scotland. An invitation to take part in the survey was distributed through the Scottish Committee for Orthopaedics & Trauma (SCOT) email address list. A series of 10 questions were designed to determine the background of participants, their experience at performing hip fracture surgery (including THR) and their thoughts regarding its use in the hip fracture setting. Results were collated at the end of the study period and quantitatively analysed where possible. There were 91 responses in total. 53percnt; of individuals said they would offer those meeting the NICE criteria a THR less than 76percnt; of the time. The most commonly used alternative was a cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty (51percnt;). Hip surgeons were more likely to perform or supervise THR for hip fracture than non-hip surgeons (p<0.0001). There were a wide variety of reasons why people would not offer a THR including dislocation rate, technical complexity and inadequate evidence for use. Overall this study highlights current trends and barriers in the provision of THR to hip fracture patients. This knowledge can be used to ascertain research priorities to maximise the quality of care in this setting

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?

Introduction. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) currently recommends the use of total hip replacement (THR) for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in cognitively competent patients and who were independently mobile with the maximum use of one stick prior to the injury. Method. We conducted a prospective cross sectional study of the management of hip fractures within a defined geographic region in the North East of England to assess current practice and variation in provision of THR for displaced intracapsular hip fracture. Results. A total of 879 patients with hip fracture, admitted to eight acute trauma units were included in this study. 169 of 462 patients with displaced intracapsular hip fractures fulfilled the NICE criteria for THR. THR was performed for only 49 of the eligible patients (29%). There was significant variation in THR provision between the eight units (0% THR usage to 50% usage) (p<0.001). In the patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture, there were statistically significant differences in the age, ASA grade, AMTS and pre-injury walking ability between patients who underwent fixation, THR or hemiarthroplasty (all p≤0.05). There was an increased chance of undergoing THR if a patient was 77 years (the median age for the THR eligible cohort) or younger compared to older than 77 years (RR=7.9, 95%CI 2.8–22.0, p<0.001) and if the patients were either ASA grade 1 or 2 compared to ASA grade 3 (RR=2.7, 95%CI 1.0–7.3, p=0.06). The reasons given by the treating surgeon for not performing THR in eligible patients were multifactorial. Conclusion. There is significant variation in the provision of THR for eligible hip fracture patients which is influenced by both patient demographics and also by the unit to which the patient is admitted

We compared a new fixation system, the Targon Femoral Neck (TFN) hip screw, with the current standard treatment of cannulated screw fixation. This was a single-centre, participant-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 65 years and over with either a displaced or undisplaced intracapsular fracture of the hip were eligible. The primary outcome was the risk of revision surgery within one year of fixation.

A total of 174 participants were included in the trial. The absolute reduction in risk of revision was of 4.7% (95% CI 14.2 to 22.5) in favour of the TFN hip screw (chi-squared test, p = 0.741), which was less than the pre-specified level of minimum clinically important difference. There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcome measures.

We found no evidence of a clinical difference in the risk of revision surgery between the TFN hip screw and cannulated screw fixation for patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:652–7.