In March 2012, an algorithm for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip was introduced in our academic department of Orthopaedic Surgery. It included the use of specified implants for particular patterns of fracture. In this cohort study, 102 consecutive patients presenting with an intertrochanteric fracture were followed prospectively (post-algorithm group). Another 117 consecutive patients who had been treated immediately prior to the implementation of the algorithm were identified retrospectively as a control group (pre-algorithm group). The total cost of the implants prior to implementation of the algorithm was $357 457 (mean: $3055 (1947 to 4133)); compared with $255 120 (mean: $2501 (1052 to 4133)) after its implementation. There was a trend toward fewer complications in patients who were treated using the algorithm (33% pre- versus 22.5% post-algorithm; p = 0.088). Application of the algorithm to the pre-algorithm group revealed a potential overall cost saving of $70 295. The implementation of an evidence-based algorithm for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures reduced costs while maintaining quality of care with a lower rate of complications and re-admissions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1192–7

Aims. Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme. Methods. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines. Results. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. Conclusion. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):226–233

Follow-up of arthroplasty varies widely across the UK. The aim of this NIHR-funded study was to employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations. It has been supported by BHS, BASK, BOA, ODEP and NJR. Four interconnected work packages have recently been completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from four national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document to guide appropriate follow-up care after primary hip and knee arthroplasty. We will present the following Recommendations:. For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years. At 10 years post hip and knee replacement, we recommend clinical, which may be virtual, and radiographic evaluation. After 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Overarching statements. These recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up. The 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term complex cases refer to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for replacement failure

Introduction. This study aimed to: (1) compare published follow-up guidelines for metal-on-metal (MoM) hip patients and analyse protocols in relation to current evidence, and (2) assess the financial implications of these guidelines. Methods. Follow-up guidance for MoM hips from five national authorities (MHRA in the UK; EFORT; United States FDA; Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia; Health Canada) were contrasted and critically appraised. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data (67,363 MoM hips implanted) the cost of annual surveillance for all MoM hips recorded in the NJR was calculated for each protocol. Results. Significant differences existed between recommended guidance, with protocols not reflecting the best available evidence. These include not stratifying patients according to implant type (total hip replacement (THR) or hip resurfacing (HR)) or adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) risk factors, using symptoms to decide patient follow-up, and using suboptimal blood metal ion thresholds to identify poorly performing hips. Patients with asymptomatic ARMD lesions, especially HR patients with no ARMD risk factors, would not be identified by most protocols. Vast cost differences exist between protocols when considering annual surveillance of the NJR population. The MHRA guidance was cheapest for annual follow-up (£8,264,064/10,423,296 Euro/$13,717,440). The most expensive protocols were those recommended by the FDA (£22,321,020/28,134,526 Euro/$37,029,889) and EFORT (£22,708,226/28,590,554 Euro/$37,671,431), both approaching three-times the MHRA costs. The FDA protocol was most costly for surveillance of all symptomatic patients (£18,210,816/22,947,840 Euro/$30,228,480), and EFORTs was most costly for asymptomatic HR patients (£8,283,010 / 10,428,250 Euro / $13,735,495). Discussion. Current MoM hip follow-up guidance is not evidence-based. Most protocols lack the sensitivity to detect asymptomatic ARMD lesions. It is also clear that these protocols are not financially sustainable in the long-term. Conclusions. Further work is required to ensure future guidance published by authorities is more unified as well as both clinically and cost effective

Introduction. Single-stage resection and reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is of recent interest, yet outcomes may be skewed by selected populations with healthier patients and less virulent organisms. This study quantified the effectiveness of a contemporary, evidence-based and standardized two-stage treatment protocol in patients with THA PJI including chronically infected, poor hosts. Methods. Sixty-one consecutive two-stage resection and reimplantation THAs for PJI between 2011 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed in a prospectively collected registry database. Patients were categorized with McPherson's Staging System and infection was defined by MSIS criteria. Contemporary standardized protocols were adhered to including implant resection and meticulous surgical debridement, six-week intravenous antibiotics with a high-dose antibiotic spacer, a two-week drug holiday, and laboratory assessment of infection eradication prior to reimplantation. Extended antibiotics after reimplantation were not routinely used. Successful treatment was defined as reimplantation with component retention at minimum two-year follow-up. Results. After exclusions for confounds, 43 of 47 patients had obtained minimum two-year follow-up (mean 50.9 months). 54% were male with an average BMI of 31 kg/m2. 56% were chronically infected poor hosts (Stage III-B/C). Three patients required repeat debridement and/or spacer exchange prior to final reimplantation. Treatment success rate was 95% at two-year follow-up. Success did not vary based on patient sex, age, BMI, or multi-organism PJI (p ≥ 0.117). There were no failures in the early postoperative PJI group (stage I), and both failures occurred in the late chronic PJI group (stage III). Conclusion. Our success rate with the two-stage procedure equals or exceeds that of single-stage treatment, even in an unselected cohort of chronically infected poor hosts. More rigorous scientific comparative studies are warranted prior to indiscriminate adoption of the single-stage treatment approach for PJI in THA

Hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a debilitating complication following joint replacement surgery, with significant impact on patients and healthcare systems. The INFection ORthopaedic Management: Evidence into Practice (INFORM:EP) study, builds upon the 6-year INFORM programme by developing evidence-based guidelines for the identification and management of hip PJI. A panel of 21 expert stakeholders collaborated to develop best practice guidelines based on evidence from INFORM \[1\]. An expert consensus process was used to refine guidelines using RAND/UCLA criteria. The guidelines were then implemented over a 12-month period through a Learning Collaborative of 24 healthcare professionals from 12 orthopaedic centres in England. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 members of the collaborative and findings used to inform the development of an implementation support toolkit. Patient and public involvement contextualised the implementation of the guidelines. The study is registered with the ISCRTN (34710385). The INFORM guidelines, structured around the stages of PJI management, were largely supported by surgeons, although barriers included limited awareness among non-surgical team members, lack of job planning for multidisciplinary teams, and challenges in ensuring timely referrals from primary care. Psychological support for patients was identified as a critical gap. Advanced Nurse Practitioners and multidisciplinary team (MDT) coordinators were seen as potential bridges to address these knowledge gaps. The guidelines were also viewed as a useful tool for service development. This study presents the first evidence-based guidelines for hip PJI management, offering a comprehensive approach to prevention, treatment, and postoperative care. Effective implementation is crucial, involving wider dissemination amongst primary and community care, as well as non-specialist treatment centres. Further resources are needed to ensure job planning for MDTs and psychological support for patients. Overall, this study lays the foundation for improved PJI management, benefiting patients and healthcare systems

Aims. We present the development of a day-case total hip arthroplasty (THA) pathway in a UK National Health Service institution in conjunction with an extensive evidence-based summary of the interventions used to achieve successful day-case THA to which the protocol is founded upon. Methods. We performed a prospective audit of day-case THA in our institution as we reinitiate our full capacity elective services. In parallel, we performed a review of the literature reporting complication or readmission rates at ≥ 30-day postoperative following day-case THA. Electronic searches were performed using four databases from the date of inception to November 2020. Relevant studies were identified, data extracted, and qualitative synthesis performed. Results. Our evaluation and critique of the evidence-based literature identifies day-case THA to be safe, effective, and economical, benefiting both patients and healthcare systems alike. We further validate this with our institutional elective day surgery arthroplasty pathway (EDSAP) and report a small cohort of successful day-case THA cases as an example in the early stages of this practice in our unit. Conclusion. Careful patient selection and education, adequate perioperative considerations, including multimodal analgesia, surgical technique and blood loss management protocols and appropriate postoperative pathways comprising reliable discharge criteria are essential for successful day-case THA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):93–102

Aims. To establish whether there was a consensus among the members of the Hip Society (HS) on the role of direct anterior approach (DAA) contemporary primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. An online survey was sent to all 112 active and senior members of the HS, to which 71 members responded. The survey was constructed to determine whether they believed that evidence-based medicine proves, in modern clinical practice, that the DAA has significant benefits compared to risks when contrasted with other approaches. In addition, they were asked if they currently used the DAA. Results. While only 16.9% (12/71) of respondents had been trained in a generic anterior approach during residency, 49.3% (35/71) had used the DAA in their clinical practice in the past or were using it at the present time. Unexpectedly, 42.9% (15/35) of respondents who had used the DAA in the past had abandoned it by the time of this survey. Only 22.5% (16/71) of all respondents believed that evidence-based medicine proves that the DAA has significant benefits compared to risks in contrast to other approaches. Conclusion. A comprehensive literature review found only three prospective randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing the DAA with another approach with greater than one-year follow-up. Two showed minor benefits within the early postoperative period only, and one of those showed poorer mid-term results. Most of the published comparison studies with short follow-up show longer surgical times and greater blood loss for the DAA, and many three-month comparison studies show higher complication rates for the DAA using a proprietary traction table. The complications included problems with wound healing, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury, femoral component loosening, and femoral fractures. Because of the lack of evidence from RCTs showing superiority of the DAA over other approaches and reports of higher complications, the opinion of a large majority (77.5%; 55/71) of HS surgeons was that the DAA lacks sufficient evidence to warrant its use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):57–61

Dislocation is still one of the more common reasons for revision of THR.Registry and large institutional data has demonstrated the effectiveness of Dual Mobility articulations in reducing revision for dislocation after THR. There is little data about whether the use of dual mobility is associated with a comprised clinical functional outcome. This study aimed to ascertain whether the use of Dual Mobility articulations (DM cups) comes within a compromise to the functional of the THR procedure as measured by the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Utilising a retrospective design, patients were grouped into those with DM cups with 12 PROMs (Cohort 1) or a large data base of all THR procedures also with a complete set of 12 month PROMs (Cohort 2). The 2 groups were matched for age and gender through propensity score matching. The comparison focused on five domains of the HOOS: Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Sports and Recreation, and Quality of Life (QOL) at 6- and 12-months post-operation. 12 month PROM data suggested a convergence in scores for several domains, no uniform superiority of one articulation type over the other was found across all domains. These results suggest that both DM cup and standard articulations can effectively improve patient-reported outcomes in THR surgeries, but there are variations in recovery within each cohort that are potentially influenced by factors beyond the articulation type. This study contributes to the ongoing dialogue on optimising prosthetic selection to enhance recovery trajectories and quality of life for THR patients, emphasising the critical role of evidence-based decision-making in orthopaedic surgery

The purpose of this modified Delphi study was to obtain consensus on wound closure (including best practices for each tissue layer of closure) and dressing management in total hip arthroplasty (THA), using an evidence-based approach. The Delphi panel included 20 orthopedic surgeons from Europe and North America. Eighteen statements were identified (14 specific to THA and 4 relating to both THA and total knee arthroplasty) using a targeted literature review. Consensus was developed on the statements with up to three rounds of anonymous voting per topic. Panelists ranked their agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale. An a priori threshold of 75% was required for consensus. In Round 1, 15 of 18 statements achieved consensus via a structured electronic questionnaire. In Round 2, the 3 statements that did not achieve consensus were revised during a virtual face to face meeting. An additional 2 statements were edited for clarity. In Round 3, the 5 revised statements achieved consensus via a structured electronic questionnaire. Wound closure related interventions that were recommended for use in THA included: 1) barbed sutures over non-barbed sutures (shorter closing times and overall cost savings); 2) subcuticular sutures over skin staples (lower risk of infections and higher patient preference); 3) mesh-adhesives over silver-impregnated dressings (lower rate of wound complications); 4) negative pressure wound therapy over other dressings (lower wound complications and reoperations and fewer dressing changes); 5) triclosan coated sutures (lower risk of surgical site infection). Using a modified Delphi approach, a panel of 20 orthopedic surgeons achieved consensus on 18 statements pertaining to multi-layer wound closure and dressing management in THA. This study forms the basis for identifying critical evidence gaps within wound management to help reduce variability in outcomes during THA

Arthroplasty has consistently shown ‘beneficial and often dramatic improvements in quality of life'. In developed healthcare systems arthroplasty has evolved to minimised complications through evidence-based implant selection, rigorous infection control and high volume training. The Children's Surgical Centre has performed 256 THAs since 2007, We aim to assess the outcome of arthroplasty in a LMIC. Our primary outcome was all cause of re-operation and our secondary outcome was any complications not requiring return to theatre. A retrospective review of all consecutive THA since 2007 was conducted. Electronic and physical case notes were reviewed and basic demographics, indication for THA, risk factors for complications, implant combinations and complications were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using MedCalc. A total of 256 THA were identified in 225 patients. The mean age was 43, with a M2:1F ratio. The most common pathologies were (1)AVN (44%), (2)OA (11%) and (3)DDH (11%). Revision rate was 13%. The mean time from implantation to revision was 2.8 years (0–9). The most common reasons for revision were (1)stem fracture (5.8%), (2)aseptic loosening (4.8%) and (3)infection (2.7%). Six different stems have been use over the time period. The best surviving were the Zimmer ML Taper and the UMA Muller stems. The UMA C-Stem was the worst performing which suffered 100% stem fracture. 109 complications were identified in 85 patients (33.2%). The three most common complications were (1)aseptic loosening (10.5%) (2)stem fracture (5.8%) and (3)dislocation (5.8%). Previous surgery (n=44) was found to be a significant risk for complications but not infection. OHS initially improved but began to decline after year 3. Patients present to CSC with neglected hip pathology, disability and significant pre-operative deformity. These patients benefit from THA and the initially high complication rates at CSC are declining suggesting the apex of the ‘learning curve' has passed. Cheap poorly manufactured implants continue to cause catastrophic failure

Introduction. Despite evidence-based recommendations opioids and benzodiazepines are commonly prescribed to treat osteoarthritis. This study aims to quantify the prevalence of opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions given for the primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis across a large healthcare system. Additionally, we aim to characterize risk factors for drug misuse, abuse, and diversion. Methods. We conducted a descriptive analysis of adult patient encounters with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis during a one-year time period from Jan –Dec 2016 at a large, healthcare system. Demographic data, prescription data, patient-specific prescription drug use risk criteria were collected. Descriptive analysis was conducted to characterize the population of arthritis patients who received prescription opioids. The rate of controlled substance prescribing was calculated for the population as a whole and among subgroups (age, facility type, and patient risk profile). Results. During the one-year time frame, our system had 45,341 outpatient encounters with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Almost a third of these encounters resulted in a prescription for an opioid or benzodiazepine (n = 7,375; 31.9%). The majority of patients were between ages 18 and 64 (57.1%), with 42.9% patients >65. While 38.8% were prescribed in an acute care setting (ED or Urgent Care), the majority were in outpatient clinics (58.8%) with 36.2 % of outpatient encounters originating from orthopaedic clinics. 14.3% of those who received a prescription had a risk factor for prescription misuse, the most prevalent being “early refill” (7.0%). Conclusion. Opioids remain a prevalent treatment for osteoarthritis, given in over a third of encounters. These prescriptions pose a risk for adverse outcomes, since over a third of patients had a risk factor for misuse. Continued efforts to improve compliance with evidence-based guidelines as well as alternative pain management pathways are critical to help curb the use of opioids for management of osteoarthritis

Introduction. Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in “at-risk” Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients, and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed if patients were not recalled. Methods. All BHR patients subject to the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes 46mm or below, regardless of symptoms) at one specialist centre were invited for review (707 hips). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data, as was the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid missing one case of asymptomatic ARMD. Results. The overall institutional surveillance cost to investigate all patients once was £105,922 (range £148 to £258 per patient). The most expensive aspects of surveillance were radiographs (£39,598), advanced nurse practitioner assistance (£23,618), cross-sectional imaging (£14,828), and blood metal ions (£14,825). 31 hips had imaging evidence of ARMD (12 revised, with 19 under surveillance). Seven hips were asymptomatic, however all revisions were symptomatic. The NNT to avoid missing one case of asymptomatic ARMD (on imaging and/or requiring revision) was 101 patients, equating to a screening cost of £18,041 to avoid one case of asymptomatic ARMD. Conclusions. Implementing MHRA surveillance for “at-risk” BHR patients was extremely costly, both financially and logistically. As the risk of asymptomatic ARMD was low, our data suggests the 2015 MHRA surveillance is not cost-effective. We therefore have concerns about the increasingly intensive surveillance recommended in the 2017 MHRA guidance for all metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients

Introduction. This analysis aims to provide an update of the Level-IV Partners Arthroplasty Registry (PAR), a quality-improvement initiative and research data repository. Methods. The Harris Joint Registry was founded in 1969 and has since expanded to become the Partners Arthroplasty Registry (PAR). Today, the PAR captures data on total hip and total knee arthroplasties conducted at seven hospitals in Massachusetts. Over time, data has been sourced through independent collection at a single hospital, retrospective sourcing through the Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR), and currently through the Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW). Various statistical methods analyzed changing trends of care provided to patients across affiliated institutions. PROMs collected in the PAR are the PROMIS Physical Function and Global Health Short Forms, the HOOS and KOOS. The registry is an associate member of ISAR and will incorporate the international implant library. Results. The PAR contains demographic, implant-specifics, and radiographic data for 45,645 primary arthroplasties and 8,400 revision surgeries from 1998 to 2018. The average recorded Charlson Comorbidity Index is 0.98. Average length of stay prior to home or care facility discharge decreased from 5.00 days in 2001 to 3.00 days in 2018. The average 30-day and 90-day mortality rates for 2018 were 0. 18% and 0.28%, respectively. Home discharge increased from 30.1% to 79.0% from 2001–2018. The values for these parameters are varied across the seven sites. Conclusion. The PAR can be used to develop best practices, analyze health-care economics, and promote evidence-based medicine. We are also developing a platform for registry development that can be exported by other hospitals that utilize an Epic-based record system. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. The direct anterior approach (DAA) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is now widely used. A recent unpublished survey of 1000 AAHKS members found that over half currently used a DAA technique and that most users felt the DAA was financially beneficial to their practice. Conversely, non-DAA users felt that their surgical volume had decreased. An online survey of Hip Society (HS) members was done to determine member's preference for a surgical approach and opinions regarding the DAA. Methods. 71 of 112 active and senior HS members (63%) responded to this 20-question survey. Results. The survey found that only 17% of respondents had trained in an anterior approach during residency, but that half (35 respondents) had used this approach in practice at one time. Subsequently, 43% of those 35 DAA users had abandoned it. The DAA learning curve was estimated at over 50 cases by 47% of respondents. Only 23% of 71 respondents answered “yes” to the statement “Do you believe that evidence-based medicine proves significant benefits over risks of the DAA THA versus other approaches?” Financial factors were common reasons for beginning to use the technique including accommodating patient requests and preventing the loss of patients to other DAA surgeons. Conclusion. 15 years after the emergence of “minimally invasive” DAA THA, a literature review finds that only one small (44 patient) clinical trial with >1-year follow-up showed small early functional benefits but with longer average surgical times and higher blood loss. If the DAA procedure has minimal benefits, is more difficult to perform with a high complication rate (LFCN injury, femoral fracture and loosening) in the hands of non-specialists and has a long learning curve (that caused a significant percentage of HS DAA users to abandon it), then financial factors must be the main reasons for its popularity. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. Golf is a recommended form of physical activity for older adults. However, clinicians have no evidence-based research regarding the demands on the hips of older adults during golf. The purpose of our in vivoobservational study was to quantify the hip biomechanics of older adult golfers. Methods. Seventeen healthy older male golfers(62.2±8.8 years, handicap 8.7±4.9) free from orthopaedic injuries and surgeries volunteered for participation in this IRB-approved study. A 10-camera motion capture system recorded kinematics, and two force plates collected kinetic data. Participants performed eight shots using their own driver. Data processing was performed in Visual3D. The overall range of excursion and three-dimensional net joint moments normalized to body weight for the lead and trail hips were extracted. Results. Kinematics (mean excursion and range) of lead and trail hips in all three planes during a golf swing are presented in Table 1. The trail leg experiences higher excursion in the sagittal plane, while the lead leg has more frontal plane movement. Average maximum net joint moments of the lead and trail hips were 1.2 ± 0.2 and 1.7 ± 0.3 Nm/kg, respectively. Conclusion. Our study is the first to quantify the kinematics and kinetics of the hip joint in healthy older male golfers. While the golf swing is often considered to be a predominant transverse plane motion, our results indicate considerable excursion at the hip joints in all three planes. Furthermore, the trail leg experiences 40% greater loading than the lead leg throughout the swing, suggesting that the trail leg may have a larger impact on golf performance while also leaving it more susceptible to overuse injury. For clinicians with patients who experience osteoarthritis of the hip or who have recently undergone hip surgery, this study may provide novel insight into the demands of golf on the hips. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Aims

The objective of this study was to compare the two-year migration and clinical outcomes of a new cementless hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium acetabular shell with its previous version, which shared the same geometrical design but a different manufacturing process for applying the titanium surface.

Aims. The widely used and well-proven Palacos R (a.k.a. Refobacin Palacos R) bone cement is no longer commercially available and was superseded by Refobacin bone cement R and Palacos R + G in 2005. However, the performance of these newly introduced bone cements have not been tested in a phased evidence-based manner, including roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA). Patients and Methods. In this blinded, randomised, clinical RSA study, the migration of the Stanmore femoral component was compared between Refobacin bone cement R and Palacos R + G in 62 consecutive total hip arthroplasties. The primary outcome measure was femoral component migration measured using RSA and secondary outcomes were Harris hip score (HHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form 36 (SF-36). Results. Femoral component migration was comparable between Refobacin bone cement R and Palacos R + G during the two-year follow-up period with an estimated mean difference of 0.06 mm of subsidence (p = 0.56) and 0.08° of retroversion (p = 0.82). Five hips (three Refobacin bone cement R and two Palacos R + G) showed non-stabilising, continuous migration; the femoral cement mantle in these hips, was mean 0.7 mm thicker (p = 0.02) and there were more radiolucencies at the bone-cement interface (p = 0.004) in comparison to hips showing stabilising migration. Post-operative HHS was comparable throughout the follow-up period (p = 0.62). HOOS, EQ5D, and SF-36 scores were also comparable (p-values >  0.05) at the two-year follow-up point. Conclusion. Refobacin bone cement R and Palacos R + G show comparable component migration and clinical outcome during the first two post-operative years. Hips showing continuous migration are at risk for early failure. However, this seems to be unrelated to cement type, but rather to cementing technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1333–41

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

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome.