We aimed to examine outcomes between displaced femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients managed with total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemi-arthroplasty (HA) via the anterolateral vs. posterior approach.

We used data from the HEALTH trial (1,441 patients aged ≥50 with displaced FNFs randomized to THA vs. HA). We calculated each patient's propensity to undergo arthroplasty via the posterior approach, and matched them to 1 control (anterolateral approach) based on age (±5 years), and propensity score. We used Chi-Square/Fisher-Exact tests to compare dichotomous outcomes, and repeated measures ANOVA to examine differences in patient-reported outcomes (via the WOMAC subscores) from baseline to one-year postoperative. We used logistic regression to identify independent predictors of reoperation for instability in the posterior group.

We identified 1,306 patients for this sub-analysis, 876 (67.1%) who received arthroplasty via an anterolateral approach, and 430 (32.9%) a posterior approach. The unadjusted rate of reoperation was significantly higher in the posterior group (10.7% vs. 7.1%).

Following propensity score matching, we retained 790 patients (395 per group), with no between-group differences in patient, fracture, or implant characteristics. The matched cohort had a higher rate of comorbidities, and were less likely to be employed vs. the unmatched cohort. The rate of treatment for dislocation remained higher in the posterior group (6.1% vs. 2.0%) following matching.

Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significantly better WOMAC pain, stiffness, function, and total scores in the posterior group. Between-group differences at 12-months were: pain - 0.59 (0.03–1.15); stiffness - 0.62 (0.35–0.87); function - 2.99 (0.12–5.86); total - 3.90 (0.24–7.56). We identified THA (vs. HA, odds ratio 2.05 [1.05–4.01]) as the only independent predictor of treatment for dislocation in the posterior group.

Our analyses revealed that compromised patients with displaced FNFs who undergo arthroplasty via the posterior approach may report better symptoms at one-year vs. the anterolateral approach, despite a higher odds of reoperation for instability.

We aimed to use data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the sliding hip screw vs. intramedullary nailing (IMN) for trochanteric fractures to examine complication rates between those managed with a short vs. long IMN.

This is a secondary analysis using one arm of an RCT of patients ≥18 years with trochanteric fractures. We examined differences in fracture-related (femoral shaft fracture, implant failure, surgical site infection (SSI), nonunion, limb shortening, and pain) and medical (organ failure, respiratory distress, stroke, deep vein thrombosis [DVT] gastrointestinal upset, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, sepsis, or urinary tract infection) adverse events (AE), and readmission between short vs. long IMNs.

We included 412 trochanteric fracture patients, 339 (82.2%) of whom received a short (170mm–200mm) nail, while 73 (17.7%) received a long (260mm–460 mm) nail. Patients in the long group were more likely to be admitted from home (vs. an institution), and have comorbidities, or more complex fracture types.

Patients in the long group had higher rates of fracture-related AE (12.3%) vs. the short group (3.5%). Specifically, SSI (5.5% vs. 0.3%) and pain (2.7% vs. 0.0%) were significantly higher in the long group. Patients in the long group were also more likely to develop DVT (2.7% vs. 0.3%), and be readmitted to the hospital (28.8% vs. 20.7%).

Following covariable adjustment, long nails remained associated with a higher odds of fracture-related AE (5.11, 1.96–13.33) compared to short nails. We found no association between the adjusted odds of readmission and nail length (1.00, 0.52–1.94).

Our analyses revealed that trochanteric fracture patients managed with long IMN nails may have a higher odds of fracture-related AE compared to short nails. Future research is required to validate these findings with larger event rates, and further optimize IMN for trochanteric fracture patients.

Aims

Using data from the Hip Fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) trial, we sought to determine if a difference in functional outcomes exists between monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (HA).

Aims

To develop prediction models using machine-learning (ML) algorithms for 90-day and one-year mortality prediction in femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients aged 50 years or older based on the Hip fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) and Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trials.

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore the functional results in a fitter subgroup of participants in the Hip Fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) trial to determine whether there was an advantage of total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA) in this population.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing cross-linked with conventional polyethylene liners for total hip replacement in order to determine whether these liners reduce rates of wear, radiological evidence of osteolysis and the need for revision. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases were searched from their inception to May 2010 for all trials involving the use of cross-linked polyethylene in total hip replacement. Eligibility for inclusion in the review included the random allocation of treatments, the use of cross-linked and conventional polyethylene, and radiological wear as an outcome measure. The pooled mean differences were calculated for bedding-in, linear wear rate, three-dimensional linear wear rate, volumetric wear rate and total linear wear. Pooled risk ratios were calculated for radiological osteolysis and revision hip replacement. A search of the literature identified 194 potential studies, of which 12 met the inclusion criteria. All reported a significant reduction in radiological wear for cross-linked polyethylene.

The pooled mean differences for linear rate of wear, three-dimensional linear rate of wear, volumetric wear rate and total linear wear were all significantly reduced for cross-linked polyethylene. The risk ratio for radiological osteolysis was 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.58; I² = 0%), favouring cross-linked polyethylene. The follow-up was not long enough to show a difference in the need for revision surgery.