The two commonest types of hemiarthroplasty used for the treatment of a displaced intracapsular fracture are the uncemented Austin Moore Prosthesis and cemented Thompson hemiarthroplasty. To determine if any difference in outcome exists between these implants we undertook a prospective randomised controlled trial of 300 patients with a displaced intracapsular hip fractures. All operations were performed or supervised by one orthopaedic surgeon and all by a standard anterolateral approach. Patients were followed by a nurse blinded in the type of prosthesis to assess residual pain and mobility. The average age of the patients was 83 years and 23% were male. 73% came from their own home with the remainder from institutional care. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between groups, with 34/151 having died at one year in the cemented group and 45/149 in the uncemented group. Pain scores (grade 1-6) were less for those treated by a cemented prosthesis (mean score 1.8 versus 2.4, p value <0.00001). Mobility change was also less for those treated with a cemented implant (p=0002). No difference was found in hospital stay. Operative complications are as listed. One case of non-fatal intraoperative cardiac arrest occurred in the cemented group. In summary a cemented Thompson Hemiarthroplasty causes less pain and less deterioration in mobility compared to uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty, without any increase in complications. The continued use of an uncemented Austin Moore cannot be recommended

Introduction. Cemented hemiarthroplasty for neck of femur fractures has been advocated over uncemented hemiarthroplasty due to better post-operative recovery and patient satisfaction. However, studies have shown adverse effects of bone cement on the cardio-respiratory system which may lead to higher morbidity and mortality. Therefore, in some institutes, the use of an uncemented prosthesis has been adopted for patients with a high number of co-morbidities. The aim was to compare early mortality rates for cemented vs. uncemented hemiarthroplasties. Method. Cohort study of displaced intracapsular hip fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty between 1999–2009 at one institute. A total of 3094 hemiarthroplasties performed; out of which 1002(32.4%) were cemented and 2092(67.6%) were uncemented. 48hour and 30day mortality rates for the two groups were compared and a multivariate Cox regression model used to eliminate confounding factors. Significant confounding factor included age, sex, mini mental test score, medical co-morbidities, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and delay to surgery. Results. The study showed that, after eliminating confounding factors, 48hour mortality in the cemented group was 0.3% compared to 0.5% in the uncemented group (p=0.388). However, the adjusted 30day mortality rate for the cemented group (4%) was shown to be significantly lower than for the uncemented group (10.8%) (p< 0.001). Conclusion. The use of cement in hip hemiarthroplasty is not associated with an increased rate of mortality at 48hours or at 30days. Along with emerging evidence of better post-op recovery and patient satisfaction with the use of a cemented prosthesis, we support the use of cement for all patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty

Background. There is increasing interest in the use of Total Hip Replacement (THR) for reconstruction in patients who have suffered displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Patient selection is important for good outcomes but criteria have only recently been clearly defined in the form of national guidelines. This study aims to investigate patient reported outcomes and satisfaction after Total Hip Replacement (THR) undertaken for displaced hip fractures and to compare these with a matched cohort of patients undergoing contemporaneous THR for osteoarthritis in order to assess the safety and effectiveness of national clinical guidelines. Methods. 100 patients were selected for treatment of displaced hip fractures using THR between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2009. These patients were selected using national guidelines and were matched for age and gender with 300 patients who underwent contemporaneous THR as an elective procedure for osteoarthritis. Results. Patients undergoing THR for both fracture and as an elective procedure reported excellent outcomes and satisfaction. Hip fracture patients had better post-operative Oxford hip scores (p< 0.001) and SF-12 physical component scores (p< 0.001). Mental component scores were poorer for hip fracture patients (p< 0.001). In this series, the rates of major complications for hip fracture patients were higher than for elective patients. Nevertheless, the rates of dislocation, deep infection and early revision surgery were similar to those widely reported in the literature and considered within acceptable limits after elective surgery. Conclusions. For selected patients, THR undertaken for displaced fractures of the hip produces outcomes which are at least equivalent to those achieved after elective surgery. Selection is critical to this success and the extended use of current guidelines is appropriate and safe

The clinical results of the cemented Exeter stem in primary hip surgery have been excellent. The Exeter ‘philosophy’ has also been extended into the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures with ‘cemented bipolars’ and the Exeter Trauma Stem (Howmedica). We have identified an increase in the number of periprosthetic fractures that we see around the Exeter stem. We have also identified a particular group of patients with comminuted fractures around ‘well fixed’ Exeter stems after primary hip surgery that present a particular difficult clinical problem. Prior to fracture, the stems are not loose, the cement mantle remains sound and bone quality surrounding the reconstruction is good, i.e. classifying it as a Vancouver B1. However the comminuted nature of the fracture makes reduction and fixation with traditional methods difficult. Therefore in these particular circumstances it is often better to manage these as B2 or even B3 fractures, with distal bypass and uncemented reconstruction. Over an eleven-year period since 1999, 185 patients have been admitted to Nottingham University Hospitals with a periprosthetic femoral fracture around a hip replacement. These patients were identified from a prospective database of all trauma patients admitted to the institution. Of these patients we have identified a cohort of 21 patients (11%) with a periprosthetic fracture around an Exeter polished stem. Hospital notes were independently reviewed and data retrieved. Outcome data was collected with end points of fracture union, re-revision surgery and death. Data was also collected on immediate and long term post-operative complications. The mean age was 76 years at time of fracture, and 52% were male. The mean duration between primary index surgery and fracture was 18 months (median 11 months). 15 patients were classified as Vancouver B1, and six as B2 fractures. Of the B1 fractures, 14 underwent fixation and one was treated non-operatively. Of the B2 fractures, four were revised, one was revised and fixed using a plate, and one was fixed using a double-plating technique. Prior to fracture, none of the implants were deemed loose although one patient was under review of a stress fracture which subsequently displaced. One patient died prior to fracture union. All the other patients subsequently went onto unite at a mean of 4 months. There were no deep infections, non- or malunions. No patient underwent further surgery. Dislocation occurred in one patient and a superficial wound infection occurred in one patient which responded to antibiotic treatment. Three other patients have subsequently died at seven, twelve and fifty-three months post fracture due to unrelated causes. In our series of patients, in addition to the more standard fracture patterns, we have identified a very much more comminuted fracture. Indeed, we have described the appearance as if the tapered stem behaves like an axe, splitting the proximal femur as a consequence of a direct axial load. As a consequence of the injury, the cement mantle itself is severely disrupted. There is significant comminution and soft tissue stripping, calling into question the viability of the residual fragments. Treatment of this type of fracture using a combination of plates, screws and cables is unlikely to provide a sufficiently sound reconstruction. In our experience we believe these fractures around previously ‘well fixed’ Exeter stems should be treated as B2/B3 injuries