The October 2024 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Early versus delayed weightbearing following operatively treated ankle fracture (WAX): a non-inferiority, multicentre, randomized controlled trial; The effect of early weightbearing and later weightbearing rehabilitation interventions on outcomes after ankle fracture surgery; Is intramedullary nailing of femoral diaphyseal fractures in the lateral decubitus position as safe and effective as on a traction table?; Periprosthetic fractures of the hip: Back to the Future, Groundhog Day, and horses for courses; Two big bones, one big decision: when to fix bilateral femur fractures; Comparison of ankle fracture fixation using intramedullary fibular nailing versus plate fixation; Unclassified acetabular fractures: do they really exist?

Aims

The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of reoperation (all cause and specifically for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF)) and mortality, and associated risk factors, following a hemiarthroplasty incorporating a cemented collarless polished taper slip stem (PTS) for management of an intracapsular hip fracture.

The February 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Trial of vancomycin and cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis in arthroplasty; Is preoperative posterior femoral neck tilt a risk factor for fixation failure? Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip; Periprosthetic fractures in larger hydroxyapatite-coated stems: are collared stems a better alternative for total hip arthroplasty?; Postoperative periprosthetic fracture following hip arthroplasty with a polished taper slip versus composite beam stem; Is oral tranexamic acid as good as intravenous?; Stem design and the risk of early periprosthetic femur fractures following THA in elderly patients; Does powered femoral broaching compromise patient safety in total hip arthroplasty?

Polished taper-slip (PTS) cemented stems have an excellent clinical track record and are the most common stem type used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the UK. Due to low rates of aseptic loosening, they have largely replaced more traditional composite beam (CB) cemented stems. However, there is now emerging evidence from multiple joint registries that PTS stems are associated with higher rates of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) compared to their CB stem counterparts. The risk of both intraoperative and postoperative PFF remains greater with uncemented stems compared to either of these cemented stem subtypes. PFF continues to be a devastating complication following primary THA and is associated with high complication and mortality rates. Recent efforts have focused on identifying implant-related risk factors for PFF in order to guide preventative strategies, and therefore the purpose of this article is to present the current evidence on the effect of cemented femoral stem design on the risk of PFF.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):11–15.

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the three-year follow-up for a series of 400 patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip, who were randomized to be treated with either a cemented polished tapered hemiarthroplasty or an uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated hemiarthroplasty.

The August 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Using machine learning to predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events following total joint arthroplasty; Antibiotic length in revision total hip arthroplasty; Preoperative colonization and worse outcomes; Short stem cemented total hip arthroplasty; What are the outcomes of one- versus two-stage revisions in the UK?; To cement or not to cement? The best approach in hemiarthroplasty; Similar re-revisions in cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty; Are hip precautions still needed?

Aims

Several different designs of hemiarthroplasty are used to treat intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur, with large variations in costs. No clinical benefit of modular over monoblock designs has been reported in the literature. Long-term data are lacking. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year implant survival of commonly used designs of hemiarthroplasty.

Aims

The Exeter short stem was designed for patients with Dorr type A femora and short-term results are promising. The aim of this study was to evaluate the minimum five-year stem migration pattern of Exeter short stems in comparison with Exeter standard stems.

Dual mobility (DM) is most often used by surgeons to reduce instability in high risk patients. NJR data on DM has not demonstrated a reduction in all cause revision and has reported an increase in revision for peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF). The aim of our study was:. Report outcome of DM used in high-risk patients including non-revision re-operations (dislocation & PPF). Comparison with conventional bearing THA (cTHA) with local, national and NJR benchmarking data. Retrospective cohort assessment of falls risk for patients receiving DM. Prospective F/U of a DM implant since 2016 and enrolled into Beyond Compliance (BC). Primary outcome measure all-cause revision with secondary outcome including any re-operation and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). All patients were risk stratified and considered high risk for instability. Complications were identified via hospital records, clinical coding linkage, NJR and BC. Benchmarking data for comparison was obtained from same data sources we also considered all B type PPF that occurred with cemented polished taper stem (PTS). 159 implants in 154 patients with a mean age 74.0 years and a maximum F/U of 6.7 years. Survivorship for all-cause revision 99.4% (95% CI 96.2–99.8). One femoral only revision. Mean gain in OHS 27.4. Dislocation rate 0.6% with a single event. Patients with a PTS rate of Type B PPF 2.1% requiring revision/fixation. Compared to cTHA this cohort was significantly older (74.0 vs 68.3 years), more co-morbidity (ASA 3 46.5% vs 14.4%) and more non-OA indications (32.4% vs 8.5%). Relative risks for dislocation 0.57 (95%CI 0.08–4.1) and PPF 1.75 (95%CI 0.54–5.72). Every patient had at least one risk factor for falling and >50% of cohort had 4 or more risk factors using NICE tool. The selective use of DM in high-risk patients can reduce the burden of instability. These individuals are very different to the “average” THA patient. A “perfect storm” is created using a high-risk implant combination (DM & PTS) in high-risk falls risk population. This re-enforces the need to consider all patient and implant factors when deciding bearing selection

The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):481–486.

The April 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Do technical errors determine outcomes of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in younger adults?; Single-stage or two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM); Fixation better than revision in type B periprosthetic fractures of taper slip stems; Can you maximize femoral head size at the expense of liner thickness?; Plasma D-dimer for periprosthetic joint infection?; How important is in vivo oxidation?; Total hip arthroplasty for HIV patients with osteonecrosis.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims. The aim of this study is to report the long-term outcomes of instrumented femoral revisions with impaction allograft bone grafting (IBG) using the X-change femoral revision system at 30 years after introduction of the technique. Methods. We updated the outcomes of our previous study, based on 208 consecutive revisions using IBG and the X-change femoral revision system in combination with a cemented polished stem, performed in our tertiary care institute between 1991 and 2007. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to determine the survival rate of the revisions with endpoint revision for any reason and aseptic loosening. Secondary outcomes were radiological loosening and patient-reported outcome measures. Results. Mean age at revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) was 64.9 years (30 to 86). The most prevalent diagnosis for the femoral revision was aseptic loosening. At review in May 2021, 81 patients (85 hips) were still alive and 118 patients (120 hips; 58%) had died. Three patients (3 hips; 1%) were lost to follow-up at 11, 15, and 16 years after surgery, respectively. Data of all deceased and lost patients were included until final follow-up. The mean follow-up was 13.4 years (0 to 28). During the follow-up, 22 re-revisions were performed. The most common reason for re-revision was infection (n = 12; 54%). The survival with endpoint re-revision for any reason was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79 to 91) at 20 years and 74% (95% CI 43 to 89) at 25 years after surgery. The survival for endpoint re-revision for aseptic loosening was 97% (95% CI 91 to 99) after both 20 and 25 years. Conclusion. We conclude that femoral IBG is a valuable technique that can reconstitute femoral bone loss in the long term. After 25 years of follow-up, few re-revisions for aseptic loosening were required. Also, the overall revision rate is very acceptable at a long follow-up. This technique is especially attractive for younger patients facing femoral revisions with extensive bone loss. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1039–1046

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the demographic details of patients who sustain a femoral periprosthetic fracture (PPF), the epidemiology of PPFs, PPF characteristics, and the predictors of PPF types in the UK population.

Aims

Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPFs) after total hip arthroplasty are difficult to treat. Therefore, it is important to identify modifiable risk factors such as stem selection to reduce the occurrence of PPFs. This study aimed to clarify differences in fracture torque, surface strain, and fracture type analysis between three different types of cemented stems.

Aims

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique.