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.
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). This study is a secondary analysis of patients aged 50 years or older with a displaced femoral neck fracture who were enrolled in the HEALTH trial and underwent monopolar and bipolar HA. Scores from the Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (PCS) and (MCS) were compared between the two HA groups using a propensity score-weighted analysis.Aims
Methods
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. This study included 2,388 patients from the HEALTH and FAITH trials, with 90-day and one-year mortality proportions of 3.0% (71/2,388) and 6.4% (153/2,388), respectively. The mean age was 75.9 years (SD 10.8) and 65.9% of patients (1,574/2,388) were female. The algorithms included patient and injury characteristics. Six algorithms were developed, internally validated and evaluated across discrimination (c-statistic; discriminative ability between those with risk of mortality and those without), calibration (observed outcome compared to the predicted probability), and the Brier score (composite of discrimination and calibration).Aims
Methods
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 performed a post hoc exploratory analysis of a fitter cohort of patients from the HEALTH trial. Participants were aged over 50 years and had sustained a low-energy displaced femoral neck fracture (FNF). The fittest participant cohort was defined as participants aged 70 years or younger, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I or II, independent walkers prior to fracture, and living at home prior to fracture. Multilevel models were used to estimate the effect of THA versus HA on functional outcomes. In addition, a sensitivity analysis of the definition of the fittest participant cohort was performed.Aims
Methods
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.
