Objectives. The objective of this study was to assess all evidence comparing the Thompson monoblock hemiarthroplasty with modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip with respect to mortality and complications. Methods. A literature search was performed to identify all relevant literature. The population consisted of patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty of the hip for fracture. The intervention was hemiarthroplasty of the hip with a comparison between Thompson and modular unipolar prostheses. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PROSPERO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The study designs included were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), well designed case control studies and retrospective or prospective cohort studies. Studies available in any language, published at any time until September 2015 were considered. Studies were included if they contained mortality or complications. Results. The initial literature search identified 4757 items for examination. Four papers were included in the final review. The pooled odds ratio for mortality was 1.3 (95% confidence Interval 0.78 to 2.46) favouring modular designs. The pooled odds ratio for post-operative complications was 1.1 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.55) favouring modular designs. Outcomes were reported at 12 or six months. These papers all contained potential sources of bias and significant clinical heterogeneity. Conclusion. The current evidence comparing monoblock versus modular implants in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty is weak. Confidence intervals around the pooled odds ratios are broad and incorporate a value of one. Direct comparison of outcomes from these papers is fraught with difficulty and, as such, may well be misleading. A well designed randomised controlled trial would be helpful to inform
Outcomes following different types of surgical intervention for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) are well reported individually but comparative data are deficient. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis to analyze the outcomes following surgical management of FAI by hip arthroscopy (HA), anterior mini open approach (AMO), and surgical hip dislocation (SHD). This SR was registered with PROSPERO. An electronic database search of PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE for English and German language articles over the last 20 years was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We specifically analyzed and compared changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), α-angle, rate of complications, rate of revision, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). A total of 48 articles were included for final analysis with a total of 4,384 hips in 4,094 patients. All subgroups showed a significant correction in mean α angle postoperatively with a mean change of 28.8° (95% confidence interval (CI) 21 to 36.5; p < 0.01) after AMO, 21.1° (95% CI 15.1 to 27; p < 0.01) after SHD, and 20.5° (95% CI 16.1 to 24.8; p < 0.01) after HA. The AMO group showed a significantly higher increase in PROMs (3.7; 95% CI 3.2 to 4.2; p < 0.01) versus arthroscopy (2.5; 95% CI 2.3 to 2.8; p < 0.01) and SHD (2.4; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.3; p < 0.01). However, the rate of complications following AMO was significantly higher than HA and SHD. All three surgical approaches offered significant improvements in PROMs and radiological correction of cam deformities. All three groups showed similar rates of revision procedures but SHD had the highest rate of conversion to a THA. Revision rates were similar for all three revision procedures.
The aim of this review is to evaluate the current
available literature evidencing on peri-articular hip endoscopy
(the third compartment). A comprehensive approach has been set on
reports dealing with endoscopic surgery for recalcitrant trochanteric
bursitis, snapping hip (or coxa-saltans; external and internal),
gluteus medius and minimus tears and endoscopy (or arthroscopy)
after total hip arthroplasty. This information can be used to trigger
further research, innovation and education in extra-articular hip
endoscopy.
