Fractures of the proximal femur are one of the
greatest challenges facing the medical community, constituting a
heavy socioeconomic burden worldwide. Controversy exists regarding
the optimal treatment for independent patients with displaced intracapsular fractures
of the proximal femur. The recognised alternatives are hemiarthroplasty
and total hip replacement. At present there is no established standard
of care, with both types of arthroplasty being used in many centres.
The principal advantages of total hip replacement are a functional
benefit over hemiarthroplasty and a reduced risk of revision surgery.
The principal criticism is the increased risk of dislocation. We
believe that an alternative acetabular component may reduce the
risk of dislocation but still provide the functional benefit of
total hip replacement in these patients. We therefore propose to
investigate the dislocation risk of a dual-mobility acetabular component
compared with standard polyethylene component in total hip replacement
for independent patients with displaced intracapsular fractures
of the proximal femur within the framework of the larger WHiTE (Warwick
Hip Trauma Evaluation) Comprehensive Cohort Study. Cite this article:
Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur may be required to treat primary bone tumours or destructive metastases either with impending or established pathological fracture. Modular prostheses are available off the shelf and can be adapted to most reconstructive situations for this purpose. We have assessed the clinical and functional outcome of using the METS (Stanmore Implants Worldwide) modular tumour prosthesis to reconstruct the proximal femur in 100 consecutive patients between 2001 and 2006. We compared the results with the published series for patients managed with modular and custom-made endoprosthetic replacements for the same conditions. There were 52 males and 48 females with a mean age of 56.3 years (16 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 24.6 months (0 to 60). In 65 patients the procedure was undertaken for metastases, in 25 for a primary bone tumour, and in ten for other malignant conditions. A total of 46 patients presented with a pathological fracture, and 19 presented with failed fixation of a previous pathological fracture. The overall patient survival was 63.6% at one year and 23.1% at five years, and was significantly better for patients with a primary bone tumour than for those with metastatic tumour (82.3% vs 53.3%, respectively at one year (p = 0.003)). There were six early dislocations of which five could be treated by closed reduction. No patient needed revision surgery for dislocation. Revision surgery was required by six (6%) patients, five for pain caused by acetabular wear and one for tumour progression. Amputation was needed in four patients for local recurrence or infection. The estimated five-year implant survival with revision as the endpoint was 90.7%. The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 61% (51% to 95%). The implant survival and complications resulting from the use of the modular system were comparable to the published series of both custom-made and other modular proximal femoral implants. We conclude that at intermediate follow-up the modular tumour prosthesis for proximal femur replacement provides versatility, a low incidence of implant-related complications and acceptable function for patients with metastatic tumours, pathological fractures and failed fixation of the proximal femur. It also functions as well as a custom-made endoprosthetic replacement.
