Aims

To compare the outcomes for trochanteric fractures treated with a sliding hip screw (SHS) or a cephalomedullary nail.

In a randomised trial involving 598 patients with 600 trochanteric fractures of the hip, the fractures were treated with either a sliding hip screw (n = 300) or a Targon PF intramedullary nail (n = 300). The mean age of the patients was 82 years (26 to 104). All surviving patients were reviewed at one year with functional outcome assessed by a research nurse blinded to the treatment used. The intramedullary nail was found to have a slightly increased mean operative time (46 minutes (sd 12.3) versus 49 minutes (sd 12.7), p < 0.001) and an increased mean radiological screening time (0.3 minutes (sd 0.2) versus 0.5 minutes (sd 0.3), p <  0.001). Operative difficulties were more common with the intramedullary nail. There was no statistically significant difference between implants for wound healing complications (p = 1), or need for post-operative blood transfusion (p = 1), and medical complications were similarly distributed in both groups. There was a tendency to fewer revisions of fixation or conversion to an arthroplasty in the nail group, although the difference was not statistically significant (nine versus three cases, p = 0.14). The extent of shortening, loss of hip flexion, mortality and degree of residual pain were similar in both groups. The recovery of mobility was superior for those treated with the intramedullary nails (p = 0.01 at one year from injury).

In summary, both implants produced comparable results but there was a tendency to better return of mobility for those treated with the intramedullary nail.

Aims

To synthesise the literature and perform a meta-analysis detailing the longitudinal recovery in the first two years following a distal radius fracture (DRF) managed with volar plate fixation.

Fractures of the hip are common, often occurring in frail elderly patients, but also in younger fit healthy patients following trauma. They have a significant associated mortality and major social and financial implications to patients and health care providers. Many guidelines are available for the management of these patients, mostly recommending early surgery for the best outcomes. As a result, healthcare authorities now put pressure on surgical teams to ‘fast track’ patients with a fracture of the hip, often misquoting the available literature, which in itself can be confusing and even conflicting.

This paper has been written following an extensive review of the available literature. An attempt is made to clarify what is meant by early surgery (expeditious versus emergency), and we conclude with a personal view for the practical management of these patients of variable age, fitness and type of surgery performed within services that are often under considerable pressure of finance and available operating theatres and qualified staff.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1573–81.

Background

Approximately half of all hip fractures are displaced intracapsular fractures. The standard treatment for these fractures is either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on hip fracture management recommends the use of ‘proven’ cemented stem arthroplasty with an Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of at least 3B (97% survival at three years). The Thompsons prosthesis is currently lacking an ODEP rating despite over 50 years of clinical use, likely due to the paucity of implant survival data. Nationally, adherence to these guidelines is varied as there is debate as to which prosthesis optimises patient outcomes.

The aim of this study was to analyse the functional outcome after a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck in active patients aged over 70 years without osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis of the hip, randomised to receive either a hemiarthroplasty or a total hip replacement (THR). We studied 252 patients of whom 47 (19%) were men, with a mean age of 81.1 years (70.2 to 95.6). They were randomly allocated to be treated with either a cemented hemiarthroplasty (137 patients) or cemented THR (115 patients). At one- and five-year follow-up no differences were observed in the modified Harris hip score, revision rate of the prosthesis, local and general complications, or mortality. The intra-operative blood loss was lower in the hemiarthroplasty group (7% > 500 ml) than in the THR group (26% > 500 ml) and the duration of surgery was longer in the THR group (28% > 1.5 hours versus 12% > 1.5 hours). There were no dislocations of any bipolar hemiarthroplasty and eight dislocations of a THR during follow-up.

Because of a higher intra-operative blood loss (p < 0.001), an increased duration of the operation (p < 0.001) and a higher number of early and late dislocations (p = 0.002), we do not recommend THR as the treatment of choice in patients aged ≥ 70 years with a fracture of the femoral neck in the absence of advanced radiological osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis of the hip.

We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice. After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%) had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita), Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question the need for so many different products, especially with limited published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:583–97.