Cemented Versus Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty for Displaced Intracapsular Neck of Femur Fractures in the Elderly: Outcomes and Costings.

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.

A meta-analysis assessing time for return to sport following hip resurfacing.

BACKGROUND: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is associated with excellent functional outcomes and return to pre-disease level of activity. The time for return to sport (RTS) following HRA remains unknown. The aim of this meta-analysis was to establish the time for RTS following HRA. METHODS: A search was performed on PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for trials on HRA and RTS, in the English language, published from the inception of the database to October 2020. In addition, a manual search was performed of relevant sports medicine and orthopaedic journals, and the bibliographies reviewed for eligible trials. All clinical trials reporting on time to RTS following HRA were included. Data relating to patient demographics, methodological quality, operation type, RTS, clinical outcomes, and complications were recorded by two independent reviewers. The PRISMA guidelines for reporting meta-analyses was used to undertake this study. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 1559 studies and nine further studies were found. Of these, 11 studies with a total of 659 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Two studies involving a total of 94 patients demonstrated an overall pooled proportion of 91.8% (95% CI 71.8-100) of patients RTS by three months post-operatively. Four studies including a total of 265 patients determined a pooled proportion of 96.8% (95% CI 91.0-99.7) of patients able to RTS by the 6-month post-operative stage. Pooled proportion analysis from all 11 studies comprising 659 patients showed 90.9% (95% CI 82.2-96.9) of patients were able to RTS by final follow up of 3 years. CONCLUSION: Pooled proportion analysis showed an increasing number of patients were able to RTS after HRA over the first one year after surgery. There remains marked inter and intra-study variations in time for RTS but the pooled analysis shows that over 80% of patients were able to RTS at 6 to 12 months after HRA. The findings of this meta-analysis will enable more informed discussions between patients and healthcare professionals about time for RTS following HRA.

Day-case unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a literature review and development of a novel hospital pathway.

INTRODUCTION: We have seen unparalleled changes in our healthcare systems globally as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we strive to regenerate our full capacity elective services in order to contest the increasing demand for lower limb arthroplasty, this pandemic has allowed us a rare opportunity to revise and develop novel elective arthroplasty pathways intended to improve patient care and advance healthcare efficiency. We present an extensive evidence-based review of the approaches used to achieve day-case unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) as well as the development of a day-case UKA care pathway in a UK NHS institution based on the evidence provided in the literature. METHODS: An extensive search of the literature was performed for articles that reported on readmission or complication rates ≥30 days postoperatively following day-case UKA. FINDINGS: Fifteen manuscripts reporting the results of day-case UKA, defined as discharged on the same calendar day of surgery, were included in our review. Mean reported complication rates for day-case and inpatient UKA within the follow-up periods were 4.05% and 6.52%, respectively. Mean readmission rates were 2.71% and 4.36% for day-case and inpatient UKA, respectively. The mean rate of successful same-day discharge was 92.45%. CONCLUSION: We introduce our institutional Elective Day Surgery Arthroplasty Pathway (EDSAP) founded upon the evidence presented in the literature. Stringent patient selection complimented by a well-defined day-case arthroplasty pathway is fundamental for successful commencement of day-case UKA in the NHS.