Search

Introduction: Acetabular erosion is an important complication in hemiarthroplasty and may lead to total hip arthroplasty as a conversion. The results of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcome of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion with primary total hip arthroplasty. Materials and methods: PRISMA guidelines were used and Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane libraries were searched. Both, studies comparing the outcome of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion with the outcome of primary total hip arthroplasty and the outcome of cohort studies limited to total hip arthroplasty as a conversion, were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non Randomized Studies checklist. Meta-analysis was performed concerning pooled annual revision, dislocation and infection rates. Results: A total of 27 studies were available for analysis; four comparative studies and 23 cohort studies. Comparative studies were defined as high quality and cohort studies as medium quality. Analysis revealed a significantly higher overall revision risk (Hazard Ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.14) after total hip arthroplasty as a conversion compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. The annual revision rate of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion was 1.63% (95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.33) in the comparative studies and 1.40% (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.66) in the cohort studies. A pooled infection rate of 4.34% (95% confidence interval 2.66 to 7.01) and dislocation rate of 4.79% (95% confidence interval 3.02 to 7.53), was found. Conclusions: Literature concerning the results of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion is limited. The risk of revision after conversion of hemiarthroplasty is higher compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose -- There is no consensus on the treatment of patients with femoral neck fractures between internal fixation (IF) or directly treated with a total hip arthroplasty (fracture-THA) in particular for the age group 60-70 years. Failure of IF is not uncommon, resulting in salvage total hip arthroplasty (salvage-THA). The aim of our study was to compare revision rates of salvage-THA with fracture-THA and osteoarthritis (OA)-THA. Patients and methods -- Revision rates and reasons for revision were compared. Data collected in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2018 was used. The study included 4,310 salvage-THAs, 12,159 fracture-THAs, and 274,147 OA-THAs. We performed Kaplan- Meier survival analyses and Cox regression to evaluate THA survival. Results -- No statistically significant difference in revision rates between salvage-THAs and fracture-THAs was found (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.3) whereas the revision rate was higher compared with OA-THAs (HR 1.3, CI 1.0-1.5). The 5-year revision rate was 5.0% (CI 4.4-5.8) in salvage-THAs, 4.5% (CI 4.1-5.0) in fracture-THAs, and 3.1% (CI 3.0-3.2) in OA-THAs. A higher revision rate for infection was found in salvage-THAs in comparison with fracture- THAs (HR 1.6, CI 1.0-2.3). Conclusion -- We found no difference in revision rates for salvage-THAs compared with fracture-THAs. The risk of revision for infection was higher for salvage-THA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose -- Trochanteric fractures are often treated using intramedullary fixation. In our institution, the TFN-Advanced Proximal Femoral Nailing System (TFNA) was introduced as replacement for the Gamma Trochanteric Nail (GTN3) for the treatment of these fractures as a result of a hospital-driven change of trauma implant supplier. We compared trochanteric fracture fixation failure rate between these 2 intramedullary nails. Patients and methods -- All trochanteric fractures treated surgically from 2011 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for fixation failure. From 2016 only the TFNA was used. Fixation failure was defined as implant cut-out, implant breakage, non-union, malpositioning of the screw/ blade requiring reoperation, new fracture around the nail, or miscellaneous. Propensity score matching was used to balance distribution of covariates and to compare failure rates between TFNA and GTN3 groups. Learning curve analyses were performed. Results -- After exclusion, 797 GTN3s (779 patients) and 542 (536 patients) TFNAs were available for analysis. A higher risk of fixation failure was found in the TFNA group (14%) compared with the GTN3 group (7.0%) (hazard ratio [HR] 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2--3.5). This was mainly attributed to a higher risk of cut-out (HR 2.2; CI 0.9-- 5.7), malpositioning (HR 4.7; CI 0.7--34), and new fracture around the nail (HR 4.0; CI 1.0--16). Learning curve analyses indicated no clear learning curve effect. Interpretation -- Failure of fixation increased after a switch from the GTN3 to the TFNA proximal femoral nail for the treatment of trochanteric fractures. Cut-out and malpositioning of the calcar screw or blade appeared to be the most dominant failure mechanisms. Modifications in implant design may have played a role in this increased risk of failure of fixation. In our institution a new implant device was introduced without solid clinical evidence behind it. This study may help to underline the need for medical doctors with a critical and scientific background to be involved in implant choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is commonly encountered in elderly patients with hip fracture. It is easily overlooked and predisposes patients to life-threatening postoperative pneumonia. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether OD screening by nurses results in a better recognition of patients at risk for OD. After the introduction of the Standardized Swallowing Assessment by nurses, the incidence of increased risk for OD and the prevention of OD complications were monitored (intervention group; N = 92) and compared with a historical control group (N = 81). The risk for OD was diagnosed in 27 patients (29%) in the intervention group in comparison with 12 patients (15%) in the control group (p <.05). The number of diet modifications increased from 12 (15%) in the control group to 25 (27%) in the intervention group (p <.05). A simple screening test results in better recognition of increased OD risk and, in turn, the early initiation of measures to avoid aspiration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]