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]

Purpose: Several controversies in the optimal treatment of femoral neck fractures persist, together with large variations in clinical practice. Methods: A narrative literature review covering 4 current controversies in the surgical management of femoral neck fractures (total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA), cemented versus uncemented HA, internal fixation versus arthroplasty, operative versus non-operative) was performed. Available literature was balanced against annual trends in the management of femoral neck fractures from the public domain of several national registries (Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand). Results: For most controversies, the literature provides stronger evidence than is reflected by variations encountered in daily practice. Implementation of clinical evidence tends to lag behind and important differences exist between countries. Conclusions: Trends of clinical practice from national registries indicate that implementation of available clinical evidence needs to be improved. [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: Postoperative follow-up after hemiarthroplasty is part of routine based practice. However, these visits appear to be a significant burden since it concerns a frail population. The aim of this study was to confirm the current common practice regarding postoperative visits of patients treated with hemiarthroplasty and to evaluate the complication detection rate at these visits.Methods: A national short survey was conducted among orthopedic surgeons working in 26 large Dutch teaching hospitals to test the hypothesis that postoperative follow-up is indeed common practice. Furthermore, a retrospective patient review was performed in all hemiarthroplasties implanted between January 2014 and December 2019.Results: The response of the national survey was complete and showed that postoperative follow-up in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty is part of standard care according to 89% of respondents. A total of 1055 hips (1026 patients) were implanted with hemiarthroplasty during the studied period. Implant-related complications were identified in 68 hemiarthroplasties, with 31 of these hips going on to reoperation. Only 2 of these complications were picked up at standard planned follow-up leading to a complication detection rate of 0.3%. In contrast, complication detection rates of 47% and 16% were found at unplanned visits at the Emergency Department and the outpatient department, respectively.Conclusions: Postoperative follow-up in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty is still the standard of care. However, this study revealed that the majority of implant-related complications are detected at unplanned visits and almost no at standard follow-up visits. Postoperative follow-up of patients treated with hemiarthroplasty could be abandoned in this frail population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]