Hip fractures pose a major global health challenge, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly among the elderly. With an ageing population, the incidence of these injuries is rising, exerting significant pressure on healthcare systems worldwide. Despite substantial research aimed at establishing best practice, several key areas remain the subject of ongoing debate. This article examines the latest evidence on the place of arthroplasty in the surgical treatment of hip fractures, with a particular focus on the choice of implant, the use of cemented versus uncemented fixation, and advances in perioperative care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1372–1376.

Aims

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was introduced in 1997 to address the needs of young active patients using a historically proven large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing. A single designer surgeon’s consecutive series of 130 patients (144 hips) was previously reported at five and ten years, reporting three and ten failures, respectively. The aim of this study was to extend the follow-up of this original cohort at 25 years.

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. Methods. This retrospective study included hip fracture patients aged 50 years and older treated with Exeter (PTS) bipolar hemiarthroplasty between 2019 and 2022. Patient demographics, place of domicile, fracture type, delirium status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, length of stay, and mortality were collected. Reoperation and mortality were recorded up to a median follow-up of 29.5 months (interquartile range 12 to 51.4). Cox regression was performed to evaluate independent risk factors associated with reoperation and mortality. Results. The cohort consisted of 1,619 patients with a mean age of 82.2 years (50 to 104), of whom 1,100 (67.9%) were female. In total, 29 patients (1.8%) underwent a reoperation; 12 patients (0.7%) sustained a PFF during the observation period (United Classification System (UCS)-A n = 2; UCS-B n = 5; UCS-C n = 5), of whom ten underwent surgical management. Perioperative delirium was independently associated with the occurrence of PFF (hazard ratio (HR) 5.92; p = 0.013) and surgery for UCS-B PFF (HR 21.7; p = 0.022). Neither all-cause reoperation nor PFF-related surgery was independently associated with mortality (HR 0.66; p = 0.217 and HR 0.38; p = 0.170, respectively). Perioperative delirium, male sex, older age, higher ASA grade, and pre-fracture residential status were independently associated with increased mortality risk following hemiarthroplasty (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The cumulative incidence of PFF at four years was 1.1% in elderly patients following cemented PTS hemiarthroplasty for a hip fracture. Perioperative delirium was independently associated with a PFF. However, reoperation for PPF was not independently associated with patient mortality after adjusting for patient-specific factors. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):269–276

Aims

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) following hip arthroplasty are complex injuries. This study evaluates patient demographic characteristics, management, outcomes, and risk factors associated with PPF subtypes over a decade.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601.

The June 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Machine learning to identify surgical candidates for hip and knee arthroplasty: a viable option?; Poor outcome after debridement and implant retention; Can you cement polyethylene liners into well-fixed acetabular shells in hip revision?; Revision stem in primary arthroplasties: the Exeter 44/0 125 mm stem; Depression and anxiety: could they be linked to infection?; Does where you live affect your outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasties?; Racial disparities in outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are substantially mediated by socioeconomic disadvantage both in black and white patients.

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement.

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 Roundup. 360. 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 Exeter V40 cemented polished tapered stem system has demonstrated excellent long-term outcomes. This paper presents a systematic review of the existing literature and reports on a large case series comparing implant fractures between the Exeter V40 series; 125 mm and conventional length stem systems.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter).

Objectives

Previous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. Commonly, the original cement mantle is reshaped, aiding accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone, and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, the impact of ultrasonic devices on final cement-in-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using the Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision (OSCAR; Orthosonics) on final cement-in-cement bonds.