Given the prolonged waits for hip arthroplasty seen across the U.K. it is important that we optimise priority systems to account for potential disparities in patient circumstances and impact. We set out to achieve this through a two-stage approach. This included a Delphi-study of patient and surgeon preferences to determine what should be considered when determining patient priority, followed by a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to decide relative weighting of included attributes.

The study was conducted according to the published protocol ([https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071](https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071)). The Delphi study was performed online over 3 rounds with anonymous ranking and feedback. Included factors were voted as either Consensus in, Consensus out, or No Consensus• following an established scoring criterion. A final consensus meeting determined the prioritisation factors (and their levels) to be included in the DCE. The DCE was then conducted using an online platform, with surgeons performing 18 choice sets regarding which merited greater priority between two hypothetical patients. Results were collated and analysed using multinomial logit regression analysis (MNL).

For the Delphi study there were 43 responses in the first round, with a subsequent 91% participation rate. Final consensus inclusion was achieved for Pain; Mobility/Function; Activities of Daily Living; Inability to Work/Care; Length of Time Waited; Radiological Severity and Mental Wellbeing. 70 individuals subsequently contributed to the DCE, with radiological severity being the most significant factor (Coefficient 2.27 \[SD 0.31\], p<0.001), followed by pain (Coefficient 1.08 \[SD 0.13\], p<0.001) and time waited (Coefficient for 1-month additional wait 0.12 \[SD 0.02\], p<0.001). The calculated trade-off in waiting time for a 1-level change in pain (e.g., moderate to severe pain) was 9.14 months.

These results present a new method of determining comparative priority for those on primary hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required.

The aims were to assess whether vitamin D deficiency influenced mortality risk for patients presenting with a hip fracture.

A retrospective study was undertaken including all patients aged over 50 years that were admitted with a hip fracture to a single centre during a 24-month period. Serum vitamin D levels were assessed. Patient demographics and perioperative variables and mortality were collected. Cox regression analysis (adjusting for confounding) was utilised to determine the independent association between serum vitamin D level and patient mortality.

The cohort consisted of 2075 patients with a mean age of 80.7 years and 1471 (70.9%) were female. 1510 (72.8%) patients had a serum vitamin D level taken, of which 876 (58.0%) were deficient (50nmol/l). The median follow up was 417 (IQR 242 to 651) days. During follow up there were 464 (30.7%) deaths. Survival at 1 year was significantly (p=0.003) lower for patients who were vitamin D deficient (71.7%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 68.6 to 74.9) compared to those who were not (79.0%, 95% CI 75.9 to 82.3). Vitamin D deficiency was also independently associated with an increased mortality risk at 2-years (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.53, p=0.025), but not at 1-year (p=0.057).

Hip fracture patients with vitamin D deficiency had an increased mortality risk. This risk was independent of confounders at 2 years. The role of measuring vitamin D levels in these patients is unclear. Improved public health policy about vitamin D may be required to reduce deficiency in this patient population.

Appropriate surgical management of hip fractures has major clinical and economic consequences. Recently IMN use has increased compared to SHS constructs, despite no clear evidence demonstrating superiority of outcome. We therefore set out to provide further evidence about the clinical and economic implications of implant choice when considering hip fracture fixation strategies.

A retrospective cohort study using Scottish hip fracture audit (SHFA) data was performed for the period 2016–2022. Patients ≥50 with a hip fracture and treated with IMN or SHS constructs at Scottish Hospitals were included. Comparative analyses, including adjustment for confounders, were performed utilising Multivariable logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes and Mann-Whitney-U tests for non-parametric data. A sub-group analysis was also performed focusing on AO-A1/A2 configurations which utilised additional regional data. Cost differences in Length of Stay (LOS) were calculated using defined costs from the NHS Scotland Costs book. In all analyses p<0.05 denoted significance.

13638 records were included (72% female). 9867 received a SHS (72%).

No significant differences were identified in 30 or 60-day survival (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.05, 95%CI 0.90–1.23; p=0.532), (OR 1.10, 95%CI 0.97–1.24; p=0.138) between SHS and IMN's.

There was however a significantly lower early mobilisation rate with IMN vs SHS (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.59–0.70; p<0.001), and lower likelihood of discharge to domicile by day-30 post-admission (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.71–0.84; p<0.001). Acute and overall, LOS were significantly lower for SHS vs IMN (11 vs 12 days and 20 vs 24 days respectively; p<0.001). Findings were similar across a sub-group analysis of 559 AO A1/A2 fracture configurations.

Differences in LOS potentially increases costs by £1230 per-patient, irrespective of the higher costs of IMN's v SHS.

Appropriate SHS use is associated with early mobilisation, reduced LOS and likely with reduced cost of treatment. Further research exploring potential reasons for the identified differences in early mobilisation are warranted.

In this RCT the primary aim was to assess whether a short (125mm) Exeter V40 stem offered an equivalent hip specific function compared to the standard (150mm) stem when used for cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aims were to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient satisfaction, stem height and alignment, radiographic loosening, and complications between the two stems.

A prospective multicentre double-blind randomised control trial was conducted. During a 15-month period, 220 patients undergoing THA were randomised to either a standard (n=110) or short (n=110) stem Exeter. There were no significant (p≥0.065) differences in preoperative variables between the groups. Functional outcomes and radiographic assessment were undertaken at 1- and 2-years.

There were no differences (p=0.428) in hip specific function according to the Oxford hip score at 1-year (primary endpoint) or at 2-years (p=0.767) between the groups. The short stem group had greater varus angulation (0.9 degrees, p=0.003) when compared to the standard group and were more likely (odds ratio 2.42, p=0.002) to have varus stem alignment beyond one standard deviation from the mean. There were no significant (p≥0.083) differences in the Forgotten joint scores, EuroQol-5-Dimension, EuroQol-VAS, Short form 12, patient satisfaction, complications, stem height or radiolucent zones at 1 or 2-years between the groups.

The Exeter short stem offers equivalent hip specific function, HRQoL, patient satisfaction, and limb length when compared to the standard stem at 2-years post-operation. However, the short stem was associated with a greater rate of varus malalignment which may influence future implant survival.

The aim of this study is to determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter).

This is a retrospective cohort study of 152 operatively managed consecutive unilateral Vancouver B fractures involving Exeter stems. 130 were managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and 22 with revision arthroplasty. Radiographs were assessed and classified by 3 observers. The primary outcome measure was revision of ≥1 component. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was performed. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for revision following ORIF. Secondary outcomes included any reoperation, complications, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay and mortality.

Fractures (B1 n=74 (49%); B2 n=50 (33%); and B3 n=28 (18%)) occurred at mean 6.7±10.4 years after primary THA (n=143) or hemiarthroplasty (n=15). Mean follow up was 6.5 ±2.6 years (3.2 to 12.1). Rates of revision and reoperation were significantly higher following revision arthroplasty compared to ORIF for B2 (p=0.001) fractures and B3 fractures (p=0.05). Five-year survival was significantly better following ORIF: 92% (86.4 to 97.4 95%CI) Vs 63% (41.7 to 83.3), p<0.001. No independent predictors of revision following ORIF were identified: fixation of B2 or B3 fractures was not associated with an increased risk of revision. Dislocation was the commonest mode of failure after revision arthroplasty. ORIF was associated with reduced blood transfusion requirement and reoperations, but there were no differences in medical complications, hospital stay or mortality between surgical groups.

When the bone-cement interface was intact and the fracture was anatomically reducible, Vancouver B2 fractures around Exeter stems can be treated with fixation as opposed to revision arthroplasty. Fixation of Vancouver B3 fractures can be performed in frail elderly patients without increasing revision risk.

Objectives

Previous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. Commonly, the original cement mantle is reshaped, aiding accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone, and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, the impact of ultrasonic devices on final cement-in-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using the Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision (OSCAR; Orthosonics) on final cement-in-cement bonds.

Introduction

Total Hip Replacement (THR) is an effective treatment for end stage degenerative disease of the hip and offers patients the prospect of long term pain relief, improved joint function and quality of life. Enhanced Recovery Programmes (ERP) aim to standardise routine perioperative care, reduce hospital length of stay (LOS) and promote rapid recovery after elective surgery. The aim of this study was to determine whether the implementation of an ERP could successfully reduce the length of hospital stay associated with primary THR and whether this could be achieved without compromising the expected functional outcome or risking an increased dislocation rate.