The Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) is a monoblock unipolar prosthesis currently in use throughout various orthopaedic departments. It can be a useful procedure for specialty trainees in developing modern cementation techniques in hip arthroplasty. We propose that in order for this procedure to be a valid training tool that, as well as having a standardized surgical approach and operative technique, outcomes should be easily assessed and should be similar if performed by either a trainee or consultant. All ETS procedures carried out at our institution from January 2009 until September 2011 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics and operative details were recorded from patient notes. Radiographic evaluation involved the Barrack cementation grading system, Dorr's criteria, stem alignment and leg length measurement. There was no significant difference in operative time between ETS performed by consultant or by specialty trainee. On postoperative x-ray, cement mantles were Barrack grade A or B in 55.6% (trainees) versus 61.9% (consultants). Stem alignment was neutral in 50% and varus in 50% of cases for trainees, versus 28.6% and 71.4% of cases for consultants. In total, 69.2 % of patients had lengthening of the operated limb with a mean increase of 10.4mm (2–25) for trainees and 9.3mm (2–18) for consultants. Both trainees and consultants can attain a good cement mantle. However, from our results stem alignment is less accurate by trainees with half being placed in varus. Our results highlight the difficulty of obtaining correct leg length positioning with the ETS with trainees and consultants having similar discrepancies. The ETS is a useful procedure for orthopaedic trainees to attain adequate skills in modern cementation techniques with similar post-operative radiographic outcomes to consultants. The tendency for trainees to be less accurate with stem positioning could be improved with supervision or careful pre-operative templating

Recent NICE guidance recommends use of a well proven cemented femoral stem for hip hemiarthroplasty in management of fractured neck of femur. The Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) has been designed based on the well proven Exeter hip stem. It has a double taper polished stem design, proclaimed to share geometry and surface finish with the Exeter hip. This study investigated the surface finish of the two stems in order to investigate the hypothesis that they were different. Two ETS and two Exeter stems were examined using a profilometer with a sensitivity of one nanometer. Macroscopic visual inspection showed that the two Exeter stems had significantly smoother surface finish than the ETS stems. The roughness average (RA) values on the ETS stems were approximately an order of magnitude higher than those of the Exeter stems, mean of 0.235μm compared with 0.025μm (p<0.0001). This difference in surface finish has implications for the biomechanical functioning of the stem. Previous change of the Exeter stem to a matt surface-finish in 1976 resulted in a significant increase in stem failure rates and an understanding of the importance of the polished surface-finish in order to function within a taper-slip philosophy. By changing the surface finish in the ETS stem, longevity of the implant may similarly be affected. Clinical results have yet to be published demonstrating this. We recommend the manufacturer reconsiders the surface finish of the ETS stem to ensure it functions as well as the Exeter primary stem with which it shares a design philosophy

Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) is one of the most common implants used for treating displaced intracapsular hip fractures in the UK. We previously performed a radiographic audit of these implants which showed good placement was difficult. This was in particular relation to leg length discrepancy (LLD). This study reviewed the clinical outcomes of these patients, in particular looking at the relation of leg length discrepancy to outcome. We performed a clinical review of patients at 3 months and 1 year post ETS for hip fracture. Oxford hip score (OHS), Trendelenberg test, Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and walking aids required were recorded. Leg length discrepancy was determined radiographically on initial post op X-ray. This was recorded as Even (+/− 5mm), 6-10mm Long and >10mm long. Seventy-two patients were reviewed at 3 months and 21 at 1 year. Mean VAS was 1.6. At 3 months 66% were Trendelenberg positive. Of those Trendelenberg positive at 3 months only 42% remained positive at 1 year. Mean OHS at 3months and 1 year was 30.8 and 32.1 respectively. On radiographic review 38 implants were Even, 24 were 6-10mm Long and 10 implants were >10mm Long. There was no correlation between leg length discrepancy and either VAS or Trendelenberg test. 45 patients ambulated independently pre-op. Of these only 8 ambulated independently post-op, 18 used a stick and 11 a Zimmer frame. There was no correlation between post operative leg length discrepancy and either Visual Analogue Score, OHS or Trendelenberg test. Mean pain score was very low. There was however almost 10% of patients with a VAS greater than 6. 80% of patients dropped one ambulatory level post-op, this is consistent with previous studies. The ETS provides good pain relief with a low complication rate in the vast majority of patients