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 evidence-based implant selection. Cite this article: A. L. Sims, A. J. Farrier, M. R. Reed, T. A. Sheldon. Thompson hemiarthroplasty versus modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip: A systematic review of the evidence. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–513. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.68.BJR-2016-0256.R1

Aims

Hip fracture is a common condition of the older, frailer person. This population is also at risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is important to understand the impact of coexistent hip fracture and SARS-CoV-2 for informed decision-making at patient and service levels.

The timing of total hip replacement (THR) in patients with active tuberculosis (TB) of the hip is controversial, because of the potential risk of reactivation of infection. There is little information about the outcome of THR in these patients. We conducted a systematic review of published studies that evaluated the outcome of THR in patients with active TB of the hip. A review of multiple databases referenced articles published between 1950 and 2012. A total of six articles were identified, comprising 65 patients. TB was confirmed histologically in all patients. The mean follow-up was 53.2 months (24 to 108). Antituberculosis treatment continued post-operatively for between six and 15 months, after debridement and THR. One non-compliant patient had reactivation of infection. At the final follow-up the mean Harris hip score was 91.7 (56 to 98). We conclude that THR in patients with active TB of the hip is a safe procedure, providing symptomatic relief and functional improvement if undertaken in association with extensive debridement and appropriate antituberculosis treatment.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:578–82.

We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) in reducing blood loss and transfusion in total hip replacement (THR). The data were evaluated using the generic evaluation tool designed by the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. We identified 11 clinical trials which were suitable for detailed extraction of data. There were no trials that used TXA in revision THR. A total of seven studies (comprising 350 patients) were eligible for the blood loss outcome data. The use of TXA reduced intra-operative blood loss by a mean of 104 ml (95% confidence interval (CI) −164 to −44, p = 0.0006, heterogeneity I² 0%), postoperative blood loss by a mean of 172 ml (95% CI −263 to −81, p = 0.0002, heterogeneity I² 63%) and total blood loss by a mean of 289 ml (95% CI −440 to −138, p < 0.0002, heterogeneity I² 54%).

TXA led to a significant reduction in the proportion of patients requiring allogeneic blood transfusion (risk difference −0.20, 95% CI −0.29 to −0.11, p < 0.00001, I² 15%). There were no significant differences in deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, infection rates or other complications among the study groups.