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
Considerable debate exists regarding which agent(s) should be preferred for venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemical prophylaxis following joint replacement. We assessed the practice of surgeons regarding VTE chemical prophylaxis for primary THR and TKR, pre and post issuing of updated NICE guidance in 2018. A survey, circulated through the British Hip Society and regional trainee networks/collaboratives, was completed by 306 UK surgeons at 187 units. VTE chemical prophylaxis prescribing patterns for surgeons carrying out primary THR (n=258) and TKR (n=253) in low-risk patients were assessed post publication of 2018 NICE recommendations. Prescribing patterns before and after the NICE publication were subsequently explored. Questions were also asked about surgeon equipoise for participation in future RCTs. Following the new guidance, 34% (n=87) used low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) alone, 33% (n=85) aspirin (commonly preceded by LMWH), and 31% (n=81) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: with/without preceding LMWH) for THR. For TKR, 42% (n=105) used aspirin (usually monotherapy), 31% (n=78) LMWH alone, and 27% (n=68) DOAC (with/without preceding LMWH). NICE guidance changed the practice of 34% of hip and 41% of knee surgeons, with significantly increased use of aspirin preceded by LMWH for THR (before=25% vs. after=73%;p<0.001), and aspirin for TKR (before=18% vs. after=84%;p<0.001). Significantly more regimens were NICE guidance compliant after the 2018 update for THR (before=85.7% vs. after=92.6%;p=0.011) and TKR (before=87.0% vs. after=98.8%;p<0.001). Support from surgeons for future RCTs was dependent on the clinical question, ranging from 48% participation in trials (effectiveness of aspirin vs. a DOAC) to 79% (effectiveness of 14 days LMWH vs. 28 days LMWH). Over one-third of surveyed surgeons changed their VTE chemical prophylaxis in response to 2018 NICE recommendations, with more THR and TKR surgeons now compliant with latest NICE guidance. The major change in practice was an increased use of aspirin for VTE chemical prophylaxis. Furthermore, there is an appetite amongst UK surgeons for participating in future RCTs, with a trial comparing standard versus extended duration LMWH likely feasible in current practice.
Alcohol hand rubs, endorsed by WHO and
National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended total hip replacement (THR) surgery for fit patients with fracture neck of femur (NOF) in 2011. Our hospital implemented hip fracture program to follow these recommendations the same year. However, the increased incidence of further procedures compared with those undergoing the THR for osteoarthritis alone has led to concern regarding dislocation and other complications when using THR treatment for fracture NOF particularly with the posterior approach. We introduced dual mobility implant for THR for hip fracture program patients to minimize risk of hip instability but allowing the use of the posterior approach which is recognised as giving a faster recovery than the Hardinge type approaches in this patient group. The Arthroplasty database for hip fracture program was reviewed from September 2011 to September 2015 for appropriateness of this treatment. During this period, 120 Dual Mobility THRs were carried out in 119 patients (36 males, 84 females) with mean age at 78 years (42–94) and average follow-up of 24 months (2–56 months). All patients were either operated by a fellowship trained arthoplasty surgeons or the senior surgeons using posterior approach. All patients undergoing THR for NOF were found to meet the
Introduction. THR is one of the most frequently performed operations nationally. A large number of prostheses are available, and the procedure is therefore associated with variation in practice and outcomes.
Introduction. Occult hip fractures occur in 3% of cases. Delay in treatment results in significantly increased morbidity and mortality.
The aim of this study was to explore the functional results in a fitter subgroup of participants in the Hip Fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) trial to determine whether there was an advantage of total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA) in this population. We performed a post hoc exploratory analysis of a fitter cohort of patients from the HEALTH trial. Participants were aged over 50 years and had sustained a low-energy displaced femoral neck fracture (FNF). The fittest participant cohort was defined as participants aged 70 years or younger, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I or II, independent walkers prior to fracture, and living at home prior to fracture. Multilevel models were used to estimate the effect of THA versus HA on functional outcomes. In addition, a sensitivity analysis of the definition of the fittest participant cohort was performed.Aims
Methods
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) with dual-mobility components (DM-THA) has been shown to decrease the risk of dislocation in the setting of a displaced neck of femur fracture compared to conventional single-bearing THA (SB-THA). This study assesses if the clinical benefit of a reduced dislocation rate can justify the incremental cost increase of DM-THA compared to SB-THA. Costs and benefits were established for patients aged 75 to 79 years over a five-year time period in the base case from the Canadian Health Payer’s perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the base case model conclusions.Aims
Methods
This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. This will be a mixed-methods feasibility RCT, recruiting 60 patients following hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomized to usual NHS care, versus usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme will comprise of three, one-hour, one-to-one training sessions for the patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist, or occupational therapist. Training will be delivered in the hospital setting pre-patient discharge. It will include practical skills for rehabilitation such as: transfers and walking; recovery goal setting and expectations; pacing and stress management techniques; and introduction to the HIP HELPER Caregiver Workbook, which provides information on recovery, exercises, worksheets, and goal-setting plans to facilitate a ‘good’ recovery. After discharge, patients and caregivers will be supported in delivering rehabilitation through three telephone coaching sessions. Data, collected at baseline and four months post-randomization, will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, quality assurance monitoring visit data, and clinical outcomes assessing quality of life, physical, emotional, adverse events, and resource use outcomes. The acceptability of the study intervention and RCT design will be explored through qualitative methods with 20 participants (patients and informal caregivers) and 12 health professionals.Aims
Methods
Despite few good-quality studies on the subject, total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly being performed for displaced intracapsular fractures of the neck of femur. We compared outcomes of all patients with displacement of these fractures treated surgically over a ten-year period in one institution. A total of 2,721 patients with intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck treated with either a cemented hemiarthroplasty or a THA at a single centre were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes analyzed were readmission for any reason and revision surgery. We secondarily looked at mortality rates.Aims
Methods
This paper describes the methods applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty among hip fracture patients in the World Hip Trauma Evaluation Five (WHiTE5) trial. A within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be conducted at four months postinjury from a health system (National Health Service and personal social services) perspective. Resource use pertaining to healthcare utilization (i.e. inpatient care, physiotherapy, social care, and home adaptations), and utility measures (quality-adjusted life years) will be collected at one and four months (primary outcome endpoint) postinjury; only treatment of complications will be captured at 12 months. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to assess the robustness of the results.Aim
Methods
Many different designs of total hip arthroplasty
(THA) with varying performance and cost are available. The identification
of those which are the most cost-effective could allow significant
cost-savings. We used an established Markov model to examine the
cost effectiveness of five frequently used categories of THA which differed
according to bearing surface and mode of fixation, using data from
the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Kaplan–Meier
analyses of rates of revision for men and women were modelled with
parametric distributions. Costs of devices were provided by the
NHS Supply Chain and associated costs were taken from existing studies.
Lifetime costs, lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) and
the probability of a device being cost effective at a willingness
to pay £20 000/QALY were included in the models. The differences in QALYs between different categories of implant
were extremely small (<
0.0039 QALYs for men or women over the
patient’s lifetime) and differences in cost were also marginal (£2500
to £3000 in the same time period). As a result, the probability
of any particular device being the most cost effective was very
sensitive to small, plausible changes in quality of life estimates
and cost. Our results suggest that available evidence does not support
recommending a particular device on cost effectiveness grounds alone.
We would recommend that the choice of prosthesis should be determined
by the rate of revision, local costs and the preferences of the
surgeon and patient. Cite this article:
Thromboprophylaxis after elective orthopaedic surgery remains controversial. Recent guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have suggested that low molecular weight heparin should be given to all patients undergoing total hip replacement. The British Orthopaedic Association is currently debating this guideline with NICE, as it is not clear whether published evidence supports this view. We present the early mortality in our unit after total hip replacement using aspirin as chemical thromboprophylaxis. The 30-day and 90-day mortality after primary total hip arthroplasty was zero. We compare this with that reported previously from our unit without using chemical thromboprophylaxis. With the introduction of routine aspirin thromboprophylaxis, deaths from cardiovascular causes have dropped from 0.75% to zero. These results demonstrate that there is a strong argument for the routine administration of aspirin after elective total hip replacement.
We report a retrospective review of the incidence of venous thromboembolism in 463 consecutive patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (487 procedures). Treatment included both total hip replacement and hip resurfacing, and the patients were managed without anticoagulants. The thromboprophylaxis regimen included an antiplatelet agent, generally aspirin, hypotensive epidural anaesthesia, elastic compression stockings and early mobilisation. In 258 of these procedures (244 patients) performed in 2005 (cohort A) mechanical compression devices were not used, whereas in 229 (219 patients) performed during 2006 (cohort B) bilateral intermittent pneumatic calf compression was used. All operations were performed through a posterior mini-incision approach. Patients who required anticoagulation for pre-existing medical problems and those undergoing revision arthroplasty were excluded. Doppler ultrasonographic screening for deep-vein thrombosis was performed in all patients between the fourth and sixth post-operative days. All patients were reviewed at a follow-up clinic six to ten weeks after the operation. In addition, reponse to a questionnaire was obtained at the end of 12 weeks post-operatively. No symptomatic calf or above-knee deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism occurred. In 25 patients in cohort A (10.2%) and in ten patients in cohort B (4.6%) asymptomatic calf deep-vein thromboses were detected ultrasonographically. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.03). The regimen followed by cohort B offers the prospect of a low incidence of venous thromboembolism without subjecting patients to the higher risk of bleeding associated with anticoagulant use.