Proximal short stems have gained in popularity for perceived bone preservation but more recently, physiological loading. We report the medium term success of a calcar loading, short stem in a large cohort from a single unit with multiple surgeons. Prospectively collected sequential data, with no loss to follow-up, was retrospectively analysed from our own local database. Demographic data was assimilated to collect age, sex, BMI smoking history. Revision cases were analysed for cause and a PTIR and Kaplan Meier Curve constructed to quantify survival. Radiographs reviewed in 100 of the oldest (2009 to 2011) cases to look specifically for calcar resorption and stem sink. Imatri software was used for calculations: sink was categorised into greater or less than 0.5cm; calcar resorption was estimated using maximal osteotomy surface change of slope. Patient pre-operative and post-operative outcome scores (using Harris Hip, Charnley and Oxford scales) were extracted from the database.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
The ODEP (Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel) rating system should offer a surgeon and patient extra information when making a choice on which implant to use. However, in the current economic environment, ratings may also influence implant choice by contracting bodies. Our aim was to determine the performance of commonly used Acetabular and femoral components in our unit and compare these to their published ODEP ratings (or absence of rating). We analysed all of the following primary THR components (12,792) for revision for any reason, using same date ranges as ODEP where more than 100 implantations had occurred. Hip components: Trinity (3A in 2013), Trilogy (10A* in 2016), Atlas (10A in 2013), Trilogy TMT (10A 2010) Durom (not rated), BHR (10A, 2010), ACCIS (not rated); Femoral components: Taperfit (10A in 2013), Taperloc (10A* in 2016), Metafix (3A in 2013), CPT (10A in 2012), Ecofit (not Rated), ESOP (not rated), Minihip (3A 2013), Durom (not rated), BHR (10A 2010), ACCIS (not rated). Analysis of Kaplan Meier survival curves was undertaken for all components. The rated components and non-rated components were compared using HR and logrank tests for all time groups when ratings were introduced. No statistical difference was observed in any group except for the Trinity cup which had a 98.2% (1344 cups) survival at 6 years. Component survival in our unit was better than ODEP suggested failure for A category of not more than 1% per year, for all components. Whilst we applaud the intention to improve data available for prostheses, the present ODEP system does not distinguish between performances of different implants in our unit. We therefore recommend care when relying upon ODEP ratings to make clinical or contracting decisions.
Press-fit fixation of uncemented acetabular components is increasingly being used for total hip replacement (THR) surgery. This study was aimed to analyse the survival of an established, un-cemented flexible metal backed cup with non-highly cross-linked polyethylene in primary and simple revision THR. We assessed the outcome of 1703 consecutive cementless elastic acetabular cups (Atlas, FH France) with non-highly cross-linked polyethylene (GUR1030) in total hip replacement surgery. There were 1582 patients (513 males and 1079 females) with mean age of 74 years (36–97 years). Seventeen senior operating surgeons accounted for 88.5% of cases from a single arthroplasty unit. Survival analysis was calculated using the Kaplan Meier Estimator. At 184 months post surgery the survivorship was 92.4% (95% CI 88.3–94.7) with cup revision for any cause as an endpoint. Three patients died within first month of surgery and 268 patients (17.13%) died due to unrelated causes. Overall, 59 patients had revisions (3.5%), Thirty eight patients (2.3%) were due to acetabular causes such as: aseptic loosening in 6 patients (0.35%); hip instability in 13 patients (0.76%); and deep infection in 11 patients (0.64%). We believe the cementless elastic acetabular cup on in total hip replacement is tolerant of technique and patient variation and continues to give excellent long-term results and its continued widespread use can be recommended.
National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended total hip replacement (THR) surgery for fit patients with fracture neck of femur (NOF) in 2011. Our hospital implemented hip fracture program to follow these recommendations the same year. However, the increased incidence of further procedures compared with those undergoing the THR for osteoarthritis alone has led to concern regarding dislocation and other complications when using THR treatment for fracture NOF particularly with the posterior approach. We introduced dual mobility implant for THR for hip fracture program patients to minimize risk of hip instability but allowing the use of the posterior approach which is recognised as giving a faster recovery than the Hardinge type approaches in this patient group. The Arthroplasty database for hip fracture program was reviewed from September 2011 to September 2015 for appropriateness of this treatment. During this period, 120 Dual Mobility THRs were carried out in 119 patients (36 males, 84 females) with mean age at 78 years (42–94) and average follow-up of 24 months (2–56 months). All patients were either operated by a fellowship trained arthoplasty surgeons or the senior surgeons using posterior approach. All patients undergoing THR for NOF were found to meet the NICE guidelines criteria for THR. No post-operative dislocation, infection, hetotropic ossification or lysis was recorded. Mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) at 19 months was 82 (54–98). In this cohort 112 patients (94.3%) were able to ambulate in non-trendlenburg gait pattern. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis in early post-operative period. This study emphasises beneficial use the dual mobility implant combined with the posterior approach in THR for fracture NOF patients and highlights the areas of improvements in hip fracture management.
The Vancouver classification has been shown by its developers to be a valid and reliable method for categorising the configuration of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures and for planning their management. We have re-validated this classification system independently using the radiographs of 30 patients with periprosthetic fractures. These were reviewed by six experienced consultant orthopaedic surgeons, six trainee surgeons and six medical students in order to assess intra- and interobserver reliability and reproducibility. Each observer read the radiographs on two separate occasions. The results were subjected to weighted kappa statistical analysis. The respective kappa values for interobserver agreement were 0.72 and 0.74 for consultants, 0.68 and 0.70 for trainees on the first and second readings of the radiographs and 0.61 for medical students. The intra-observer agreement for the consultants was 0.64 and 0.67, for the trainees 0.61 and 0.64, and for the medical students 0.59 and 0.60 for the first and second readings, respectively. The validity of the classification was studied by comparing the pre-operative radiological findings within B subgroups with the operative findings. This revealed agreement for 77% of these type-B fractures, with a kappa value of 0.67. Our data confirm the reliability and reproducibility of this classification system in a European setting and for inexperienced staff. This is a reliable system which can be used by non-experts, between centres and across continents.
