Periprosthetic femur fracture (PPF) are heterogeneous, complex, and thought to be increasingly prevalent. The aims were to evaluate PPF prevalence, casemix, management, and outcomes. This nationwide study included all PPF patients aged >50 years from 16 Scottish hospitals in 2019. Variables included: demographics; implant and fracture factors; management factors, and outcomes. There were 332 patients, mean age 79.5 years, and 220/332 (66.3%) were female. One-third (37.3%) were ASA1-2 and two-thirds (62.3%) were ASA3+, 91.0% were from home/sheltered housing, and median Clinical Frailty Score was 4.0 (IQR 3.0). Acute medical issues featured in 87/332 (26.2%) and 19/332 (5.7%) had associated injuries. There were 251/332 (75.6%) associated with a proximal femoral implant, of which 232/251 (92.4%) were arthroplasty devices (194/251 [77.3%] total hip, 35/251 [13.9%] hemiarthroplasty, 3/251 [1.2%] resurfacing). There were 81/332 (24.4%) associated with a distal femoral implant (76/81 [93.8%] were total knee arthroplasties). In 38/332 (11.4%) there were implants proximally and distally. Most patients (268/332; 80.7%) were treated surgically, with 174/268 (64.9%) requiring fixation only and 104/268 (38.8%) requiring an arthroplasty or combined solution. Median time to theatre was longer for arthroplasty versus fixation procedures (120 vs 46 hours), and those requiring inter-hospital transfer waited longer (94 vs 48 hours). Barriers to investigating PPF include varied classification, coding challenges, and limitations of existing registries. This is the first study to examine a national PPF cohort and presents important data to guide service design and research. Additional findings relating to fracture patterns, implant types, surgeon skill-mix, and outcomes are reported herein.
The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of an antiprotrusio acetabular cage (APC) when used in the surgical treatment of periacetabular bone metastases. This retrospective cohort study using a prospectively collected database involved 56 patients who underwent acetabular reconstruction for periacetabular bone metastases or haematological malignancy using a single APC between January 2009 and 2020. The mean follow-up was 20 months (1 to 143). The primary outcome measure was implant survival. Postoperative radiographs were analyzed for loosening and failure. Patient and implant survival were assessed using a competing risk analysis. Secondary parameters included primary malignancy, oncological treatment, surgical factors, length of stay in hospital, and postoperative complications.Aims
Methods
Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT). Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus.Aims
Methods
Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practised technique for a variety of indications in revision total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered femoral components. From our prospectively collated database, we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 to January 2013 who had a minimum of two years' follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-Stem AMT high offset No. 1 prosthesis. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment.Aims
Methods
