Aims

This study aimed to compare the change in health-related quality of life of patients receiving a traditional cemented monoblock Thompson hemiarthroplasty compared with a modern cemented modular polished-taper stemmed hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures.

The number of arthroplasties of the hip and knee is predicted to increase rapidly during the next 20 years. Accompanying this is the dilemma of how to follow-up these patients appropriately. Current guidelines recommend long-term follow-up to identify patients with aseptic loosening, which can occur more than a decade postoperatively. The current guidelines and practices of orthopaedic surgeons vary widely. Existing models take up much clinical time and are expensive. Pilot studies using ‘virtual’ clinics and advanced-practice physiotherapists have shown promise in decreasing the time and costs for orthopaedic surgeons and patients.

This review discusses current practices and future trends in the follow-up of patients who have an arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:6–10.

Arthroplasty registries are important for the surveillance of joint replacements and the evaluation of outcome. Independent validation of registry data ensures high quality. The ability for orthopaedic implant retrieval centres to validate registry data is not known. We analysed data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) for primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 2003 and 2013. Records were linked to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (RC) for validation. A total of 67 045 procedures on the NJR and 782 revised pairs of components from the RC were included. We were able to link 476 procedures (60.9%) recorded with the RC to the NJR successfully. However, 306 procedures (39.1%) could not be linked. The outcome recorded by the NJR (as either revised, unrevised or death) for a primary procedure was incorrect in 79 linked cases (16.6%). The rate of registry-retrieval linkage and correct assignment of outcome code improved over time. The rates of error for component reference numbers on the NJR were as follows: femoral head category number 14/229 (5.0%); femoral head batch number 13/232 (5.3%); acetabular component category number 2/293 (0.7%) and acetabular component batch number 24/347 (6.5%).

Registry-retrieval linkage provided a novel means for the validation of data, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate rates of revision for many types of metal-on-metal hip replacement. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous independent evaluation of the quality and validity of NJR data.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:10–18.

Objectives

High failure rates of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty implants have highlighted the need for more careful introduction and monitoring of new implants and for the evaluation of the safety of medical devices. The National Joint Registry and other regulatory services are unable to detect failing implants at an early enough stage. We aimed to identify validated surrogate markers of long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Recent guidance recommends the use of a well-proven cemented femoral stem for hemiarthroplasty in the management of fractures of the femoral neck, and the Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) has been suggested as an example of such an implant. The design of this stem was based on the well-proven Exeter Total Hip Replacement stem (ETHRS). This study assessed the surface finish of the ETS in comparison with the ETHRS. Two ETSs and two ETHRSs were examined using a profilometer with a precision of 1 nm and compared with an explanted Exeter Matt stem. The mean roughness average (RA) of the ETSs was approximately ten times higher than that of the ETHRSs (0.235 μm (0.095 to 0.452) versus 0.025 μm (0.011 to 0.059); p < 0.001). The historical Exeter Matt stem roughness measured a mean RA of 0.973 μm (0.658 to 1.159). The change of the polished Exeter stem to a matt surface finish in 1976 resulted in a high stem failure rate. We do not yet know whether the surface differences between ETS and ETHRS will be clinically significant. We propose the inclusion of hemiarthroplasty stems in national joint registries.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:173–6.

In this paper, we will consider the current role of metal-on-metal bearings by looking at three subtypes of MoM hip arthroplasty separately: Hip resurfacing, large head (> 36 mm) MoM THA and MoM THA with traditional femoral head sizes.

A total of 56 male patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip and a mean age of 81 years (62 to 94), were randomised to be treated with either a cemented hemiarthroplasty (the Exeter Trauma Stem) or reduction and internal fixation using the Targon Femoral Plate. All surviving patients were reviewed one year after the injury, at which time restoration of function and pain in the hip was assessed. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the two groups (7/26; 26.9% for hemiarthroplasty vs 10/30; 33.3% for internal fixation). No patient treated with a hemiarthroplasty required further surgery, but eight patients treated by internal fixation did (p = 0.005), five requiring hemiarthroplasty and three requiring total hip arthroplasty. Those treated by internal fixation had significantly more pain (p = 0.02). The restoration of mobility and independence were similar in the two groups.

These results indicate that cemented hemiarthroplasty gives better results than internal fixation in elderly men with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:992–6.

This review examines the future of total hip arthroplasty, aiming to avoid past mistakes

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines from 2011 recommend the use of cemented hemi-arthroplasty for appropriate patients with an intracapsular hip fracture. In our institution all patients who were admitted with an intracapsular hip fracture and were suitable for a hemi-arthroplasty between April 2010 and July 2012 received an uncemented prosthesis according to our established departmental routine practice. A retrospective analysis of outcome was performed to establish whether the continued use of an uncemented stem was justified. Patient, surgical and outcome data were collected on the National Hip Fracture database. A total of 306 patients received a Cathcart modular head on a Corail uncemented stem as a hemi-arthroplasty. The mean age of the patients was 83.3 years (sd 7.56; 46.6 to 94) and 216 (70.6%) were women. The mortality rate at 30 days was 5.8%. A total of 46.5% of patients returned to their own home by 30 days, which increased to 73.2% by 120 days. The implant used as a hemi-arthroplasty for intracapsular hip fracture provided satisfactory results, with a good rate of return to pre-injury place of residence and an acceptable mortality rate. Surgery should be performed by those who are familiar with the design of the stem and understand what is required for successful implantation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1538–43.

The debate whether to use cemented or uncemented components in primary total hip replacement (THR) has not yet been considered with reference to the cost implications to the National Health Service.

We obtained the number of cemented and uncemented components implanted in 2009 from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The cost of each component was established. The initial financial saving if all were cemented was then calculated. Subsequently the five-year rates of revision for each type of component were reviewed and the predicted number of revisions at five years for the actual components used was compared with the predicted number of revisions for a cemented THR. This was then multiplied by the mean cost of revision surgery to provide an indication of the savings over the first five years if all primary THRs were cemented.

The saving at primary THR was calculated to be £10 million with an additional saving during the first five years of between £5 million and £8.5 million. The use of cemented components in routine primary THR in the NHS as a whole can be justified on a financial level but we recognise individual patient factors must be considered when deciding which components to use.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published the guidelines on the selection of prostheses for primary hip replacement in 2000. They supported the use of cemented hip prostheses to the exclusion of uncemented and hybrid implants. The information from the Trent (and Wales) Regional Arthroplasty Study has been examined to identify retrospectively the types of hip prostheses used between 1990 and 2005, and to assess the impact that the guidelines have had on orthopaedic practice.

The results show that the publication of the NICE guidelines has had little impact on clinical practice, with the use of uncemented prostheses increasing from 6.7% (137) in 2001 to 19.2% (632) in 2005. The use of hybrid prostheses has more than doubled from 8.8% (181) to 22% (722) of all hips implanted in the same period. The recommendations made by NICE are not being followed, which calls into question their value.