Search

Background: Hemiarthroplasty (HA) is a common form of treatment for displaced neck of femur fractures. There is ongoing debate as to whether cemented or uncemented HA is a more superior treatment modality. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between patients that underwent cemented HA to uncemented HA. Secondarily, we analysed the costs associated of each treatment option. Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted at a busy district general hospital. The study included 335 patients that were treated with either a cemented or uncemented HA for a displaced neck of femur fracture between January 2017 and December 2018. Data collected included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, treatment modality, length of stay (LOS) and general costs. Results: 197 (58.8%) of the cohort underwent cemented HA and 138 (41.2%) underwent uncemented HA. Mean age for the cemented cohort was 84.7 years and 85.9 years in the uncemented group (p = 0.31). There was no significant differences between the groups with regard to mean LOS and discharge disposition (p = 0.44). There were no significant difference in 30-day and 1-year mortality between the two groups (p = 0.2). We did find a statistically significant difference in the costings between the two procedures, with cemented HAs costing £66 more than uncemented HAs (p < 0.001). Conclusion: We found that both cemented and uncemented HAs produced comparable results. We found a statistically significant reduction in operative time and costs associated with uncemented HA. Uncemented HA implants may be considered where a shorter operation duration is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The addition of Gram-negative coverage to antibiotic prophylaxis protocols prior to elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to reduce periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, it is unknown whether adding a Gram-negative-targeted antibiotic agent improves outcomes in the trauma population. This study aimed to investigate whether the addition of a single, pre-operative dose of Gentamicin is associated with lower rates of PJI in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty (HA) as treatment for a hip fracture. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of patients who underwent HA as treatment for a hip fracture from January 2011 to January 2022, and had a minimum 1-year of follow-up. Patients were divided into two groups based on the antibiotic prophylaxis they received during surgery: cefazolin (control group) or cefazolin with addition of Gentamicin (case group). The primary outcome was the rate of surgical site infections (SSI), and secondary outcomes included rates of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and superficial SSIs. Results: The final study population consisted of 1521 patients. 336 patients (22.1%) were in the case group and 1185 (77.9%) patients were in the control group. Rates of SSI were comparable between the groups (3.8% for the case group vs. 2.8% in the control group, p = 0.34). This held true for both PJIs (3.5 vs. 2.5%, p = 0.3) and superficial SSIs (0.29 vs. 0.33%, p = 0.91). The distribution of the causing pathogen was similar between the groups (p = 0.84). Gentamicin susceptibility rates of the Gram-negative bacteria associated with PJI were similar between the cohorts (p = 0.51). Conclusions: The addition of a single, pre-operative dose of Gentamicin to the antibiotic prophylaxis protocol of patients undergoing HA as treatment for a hip fracture was not associated with lower rates of SSI, PJI or superficial SSI. The findings of this study indicate that the prophylactic benefits of Gentamicin may not apply to HA as they do to THA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Revision shoulder arthroplasty can be challenging. One of the main considerations for surgeons is the type of implant that was placed in the initial surgery. Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (ASA) is used for cases of osteoarthritis as well as for fractures of the humeral head. Hemiarthroplasty can be used for complex proximal humerus fractures. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a difference in clinical and radiographic outcomes between patients that failed primary fracture hemiarthroplasty (FHA), or ASA for osteoarthritis and then required reoperation with a conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Methods: Patients with failed anatomic shoulder replacement, who had undergone conversion to RSA, were enrolled after a mean follow-up of 107 (85–157) months. Two different groups, one with failed ASA implanted for osteoarthritis and one with failed FHA, were created. At follow-up patients were assessed with standard radiographs and clinical outcome scores. Results: Twenty-nine patients (f = 17, m = 12; 51%) suffered from a failed ASA (Group A), while the remaining 28 patients (f = 21, m = 74; 49%) had been revised due to a failed FHA (Group B). Patients of Group B had a poorer Constant score (Group A: 60 vs. Group B: 46; p = 0.02). Abduction (Group A: 115° vs. Group B: 89°; p = 0.02) was worse after conversion of a failed FHA to RSA in comparison to conversions of failed ASA. The mean bone loss of the lateral metaphysis was higher in patients with failed FHA (Group A: 5 mm vs. Group B: 20 mm; p = 0.0). Conclusion: The initial indication for anatomic shoulder arthroplasty influences the clinical and radiological outcome after conversion to RSA. Conversion of failed FHA to RSA is related to an increased metaphyseal bone loss, decreased range of motion and poorer clinical outcomes when compared to conversions of failed ASA implanted for osteoarthritis. Level of Evidence: III Retrospective Cohort Comparison Study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) carry significant morbidity following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF). This study assessed fracture complications following arthroplasty for FNF and the effect of cement fixation of the femoral component on intraoperative and post-operative PFF. Methods: Between February 2014 and September 2021, 740 patients with a FNF who underwent arthroplasty were analyzed for demographics, surgical management, use of cement for fixation of the femoral component, and subsequent PFF. Variables were compared with Mann–Whitney or Chi-square as appropriate. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess independent risk factors associated with intraoperative or post-operative PFF. Results: There were 163 THAs (41% cemented) and 577 HAs (95% cemented). There were 28 PFFs (3.8%): 18 post-operative and 10 intraoperative. Fewer post-operative PFFs occurred with cemented stems (1.63% vs. 6.30%, p = 0.002). Mean time from surgery to presentation with post-operative PFF was 14 months (0–45 months). Mean follow-up time was 10.3 months (range: 0–75.7 months). In multivariate regression, use of cement and THA was independently associated with decreased post-operative PFF (cement: OR 0.112, 95% CI 0.036–0.352, p < 0.001 and THA: OR 0.249, 95% CI 0.064–0.961, p = 0.044). More intraoperative fractures occurred during THA (3.68% vs. 0.69%, p = 0.004) and non-cemented procedures (5.51% vs. 0.49%, p < 0.001). In multivariate regression, use of cement was protective against intraoperative fracture (OR 0.100, CI 0.017–0.571, p = 0.010). Conclusions: In patients with a FNF treated with arthroplasty, cementing the femoral component is associated with a lower risk of intraoperative and post-operative PFF. Choice of procedure may be based on patient factors and surgeon preference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In the over-80 s, femoral bone is often osteoporotic and unlikely to be conducive to periprosthetic bone rehabitation. This observation often leads to cemented fixation for hemiarthroplasty in femoral neck fracture. Hydroxyapatite is a bioactive coating that has already demonstrated its osteoinductive properties. Our hypothesis is that hydroxyapatite enables prosthetic osseointegration in patients over 80, as well as periprosthetic cortical thickening. The objective was to evaluate the osseointegration of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem in femoral neck fractures in the over-80 s, and the evaluation of the periprosthetic bone regeneration permitted by hydroxyapatite. Methods: This was a retrospective study. Osseointegration and periprosthetic bone regeneration were assessed on pre-operative, immediate post-operative and last follow-up radiographs with Engh score, O-SS score, cortical index, Canal Bone Ration (CBR) and Canal Fill Ratio (CFR). Results: One hundred and forty-six patients were included. At last follow-up, 99.3% (n = 145) of stems were osseointegrated. The mean Engh score was 19.9 [SD 3.1]. The mean O-SS score was 19.1 [SD 2.4], corresponding to very good osseointegration. The mean CBR at last follow-up was 0.48 [SD 0.07], corresponding to a non-osteoporotic femur. There was a significant difference with pre-operative CBR (p < 0,001). The pre-operative cortical index and the index at the last follow-up were significantly different for all levels of measurement (p < 0,001). The CFR at last follow-up was also significantly different with the post-operative CFR (p < 0,001). Conclusion: This study shows the value of using a hydroxyapatite-coated stem on senile, osteoporotic bone to improve cortical thickness along the entire length of femoral bone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication of hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures (FNF) with various prophylactic anticoagulants utilized to decrease risk. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and perioperative outcomes associated with aspirin for VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty for FNF. Methods: Medical records of 1,220 patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) at an urban academic center from 2011 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), VTE, 90-day hospital encounters, and discharge disposition, were collected. Outcomes for patients prescribed aspirin (n = 214) were compared to those prescribed non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis (n = 1006) using propensity score matching. Results: Patients who received aspirin had higher rates of THA (36.0 vs 26.7%; p = 0.008). There were no significant risk-adjusted differences in the incidence of VTE (0.5 vs 0.5%, p = 1.000) and 90-day readmissions (10.4 vs 12.3%, p = 0.646) between patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis, respectively. Patients prescribed non-aspirin agents had higher rates of non-home discharge (73.9 vs 58.5%; p < 0.001) and longer LOS (143.5 vs 124.9 h; p = 0.005). Sub-analysis of patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin prophylaxis based on comorbidity scores demonstrated no difference in VTE incidence for low (0.0 vs 1.6%, p = 1.000) and high scores (0.0 vs 0.0%, p = 1.000), respectively. Conclusion: Aspirin is not associated with increased incidence of VTE after HHA or THA for FNF. Aspirin prophylaxis should be considered in hip fracture patients to mitigate bleeding risk, particularly those with low to intermediate VTE risk. Level of evidence: Level III, Retrospective study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Although there are concerns about nonunion of the greater tuberosity or shoulder weakness, hemishoulder arthroplasty (HSA) is a viable treatment option for irreducible four-part proximal humerus fractures-dislocation without rotator cuff tear arthropathy. This study aims to analyze the long-term radiological and functional outcomes of HSA. Methods: This study enrolled 36 patients who underwent HSA due to irreducible four-part proximal humerus fracture-dislocation without rotator cuff tear arthropathy between March 2005 and May 2020. The exclusion group included 10 reverse total shoulder arthroplasty patients. The mean age and mean follow-up period were 68.6 years old and 48.6 months, respectively. Radiological assessments, such as vertical and horizontal greater tuberosity position, greater tuberosity healing, and implant position, were evaluated. Clinically, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (ASES), Constant-Murley Score (CMS), and range of motion were evaluated. Results: The greater tuberosity union rate was 55.6% (n = 20), with 44.4% (n = 16) experiencing nonunion, malunion, and bone resorption. The mean vertical and horizontal greater tuberosity positions showed significant difference at last follow-up compared to immediate postoperation. The retroversion of the implant was 23.8 ± 4.61°, and the acromio-humeral interval was 7.6 ± 1.34 mm. The mean last follow-up ASES and CMS were 39.5 ± 4.03 and 55.4 ± 10.41, respectively. The mean active forward flexion, abduction, internal rotation, and external rotation were 100.9 ± 15.04°, 92.5 ± 14.47°, 44.2 ± 12.83°, and 42.5 ± 15.32°, respectively. Conclusion: In long-term follow-up, the greater tuberosity was superiorly migrated and externally rotated. Active forward flexion and abduction in the last follow-up were significantly limited. However, in terms of pain relief, a satisfactory result was seen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study was initiated to analyze the outcome after distal femoral replacement (DFR) for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFF). Methods: Data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) were analyzed. A total of 626 patients could be identified with a DFR for PDFF. Mean age was 78.8 years, and 84.2% were female. Revisions and mortality were analyzed and compared with patient groups with a similar procedure (revision total knee arthroplasty) or similar general condition (fracture total hip arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty). Matched-pair-analyses were performed. Results: Within one year after surgery, 13.2% of the patients had died and further 9.4% were revised. Within four years, 32.7% had died and 19.7% were revised. Revisions were nearly twice as high as in the comparison groups. Periprosthetic infection (PJI) was the most frequent cause for revision, resulting in a PJI rate of 12.8%, which was lower in the comparison groups. Mortality after DFR was as similar high as after fracture hip arthroplasty. Conclusion: PDFF are a serious injury, and the necessary surgical treatment has a high risk of complications. Every third patient after DFR for PDFF had died and every fifth patient needed revision within 4 years after surgery. Efforts should be undertaken to provide optimal treatment to these high-risk patients to reduce unfavorable outcomes. Level of evidence: III. Registration of clinical trials: As this is a registry-derived study of data of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD), no registration was performed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]