Arthroplasties for hip fracture in adults.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising rapidly. The majority of hip fractures are treated surgically. This review evaluates evidence for types of arthroplasty: hemiarthroplasties (HAs), which replace part of the hip joint; and total hip arthroplasties (THAs), which replace all of it. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of different designs, articulations, and fixation techniques of arthroplasties for treating hip fractures in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and one trials register in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different arthroplasties for treating fragility intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included THAs and HAs inserted with or without cement, and comparisons between different articulations, sizes, and types of prostheses. We excluded studies of people with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis and with hip fractures resulting from high-energy trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for seven outcomes: activities of daily living, functional status, health-related quality of life, mobility (all early: within four months of surgery), early mortality and at 12 months after surgery, delirium, and unplanned return to theatre at the end of follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included 58 studies (50 RCTs, 8 quasi-RCTs) with 10,654 participants with 10,662 fractures. All studies reported intracapsular fractures, except one study of extracapsular fractures. The mean age of participants in the studies ranged from 63 years to 87 years, and 71% were women. We report here the findings of three comparisons that represent the most substantial body of evidence in the review. Other comparisons were also reported, but with many fewer participants. All studies had unclear risks of bias in at least one domain and were at high risk of detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of many outcomes for imprecision, and for risks of bias where sensitivity analysis indicated that bias sometimes influenced the size or direction of the effect estimate. HA: cemented versus uncemented (17 studies, 3644 participants) There was moderate-certainty evidence of a benefit with cemented HA consistent with clinically small to large differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; 3 studies, 1122 participants), and reduction in the risk of mortality at 12 months (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96; 15 studies, 3727 participants). We found moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in performance of activities of daily living (ADL) (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.16; 4 studies, 1275 participants), and independent mobility (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14; 3 studies, 980 participants). We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in delirium (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.06; 2 studies, 800 participants), early mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13; 12 studies, 3136 participants) or unplanned return to theatre (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 6 studies, 2336 participants). For functional status, there was very low-certainty evidence showing no clinically important differences. The risks of most adverse events were similar. However, cemented HAs led to less periprosthetic fractures intraoperatively (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.46; 7 studies, 1669 participants) and postoperatively (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 studies, 2819 participants), but had a higher risk of pulmonary embolus (RR 3.56, 95% CI 1.26 to 10.11, 6 studies, 2499 participants). Bipolar HA versus unipolar HA (13 studies, 1499 participants) We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between bipolar and unipolar HAs in early mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.64; 4 studies, 573 participants) and 12-month mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.53; 8 studies, 839 participants). We are unsure of the effect for delirium, HRQoL, and unplanned return to theatre, which all indicated little or no difference between articulation, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. No studies reported on early ADL, functional status and mobility. The overall risk of adverse events was similar. The absolute risk of dislocation was low (approximately 1.6%) and there was no evidence of any difference between treatments. THA versus HA (17 studies, 3232 participants) The difference in the risk of mortality at 12 months was consistent with clinically relevant benefits and harms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.22; 11 studies, 2667 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in unplanned return to theatre, but this effect estimate includes clinically relevant benefits of THA (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.07, favours THA; 10 studies, 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between THA and HA in delirium (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; 2 studies, 357 participants), and mobility (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.16, favours THA; 1 study, 83 participants). We are unsure of the effect for early functional status, ADL, HRQoL, and mortality, which indicated little or no difference between interventions, because the certainty of the evidence was very low.  The overall risks of adverse events were similar. There was an increased risk of dislocation with THA (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.27; 12 studies, 2719 participants) and no evidence of a difference in deep infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people undergoing HA for intracapsular hip fracture, it is likely that a cemented prosthesis will yield an improved global outcome, particularly in terms of HRQoL and mortality. There is no evidence to suggest a bipolar HA is superior to a unipolar prosthesis. Any benefit of THA compared with hemiarthroplasty is likely to be small and not clinically appreciable. We encourage researchers to focus on alternative implants in current clinical practice, such as dual-mobility bearings, for which there is limited available evidence.

Cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a substantial challenge and burden to patients, healthcare systems and society. The increased proportion of older adults in the world population means that the absolute number of hip fractures is rising rapidly across the globe. Most hip fractures are treated surgically. This Cochrane Review evaluates evidence for implants used to treat extracapsular hip fractures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects of cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary fixation implants for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and the National Technical Information Service in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles, and conducted backward-citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing cephalomedullary nails with extramedullary implants for treating fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We excluded studies in which all or most fractures were caused by a high-energy trauma or specific pathologies other than osteoporosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for seven critical outcomes: performance of activities of daily living (ADL), delirium, functional status, health-related quality of life, mobility, mortality (reported within four months of surgery as 'early mortality'; and reported from four months onwards, with priority given to data at 12 months, as '12 months since surgery'), and unplanned return to theatre for treating a complication resulting directly or indirectly from the primary procedure (such as deep infection or non-union). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes using GRADE.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 76 studies (66 RCTs, 10 quasi-RCTs) with a total of 10,979 participants with 10,988 extracapsular hip fractures. The mean ages of participants in the studies ranged from 54 to 85 years; 72% were women. Seventeen studies included unstable trochanteric fractures; three included stable trochanteric fractures only; one included only subtrochanteric fractures; and other studies included a mix of fracture types. More than half of the studies were conducted before 2010. Owing to limitations in the quality of reporting, we could not easily judge whether care pathways in these older studies were comparable to current standards of care. We downgraded the certainty of the outcomes because of high or unclear risk of bias; imprecision (when data were available from insufficient numbers of participants or the confidence interval (CI) was wide); and inconsistency (when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity or differences between findings when outcomes were reported using other measurement tools). There is probably little or no difference between cephalomedullary nails and extramedullary implants in terms of mortality within four months of surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; 30 studies, 4603 participants) and at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; 47 studies, 7618 participants); this evidence was assessed to be of moderate certainty. We found low-certainty evidence for differences in unplanned return to theatre but this was imprecise and included clinically relevant benefits and harms (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 50 studies, 8398 participants). The effect estimate for functional status at four months also included clinically relevant benefits and harms; this evidence was derived from only two small studies and was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.30; 188 participants; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the estimate for delirium was imprecise (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.22; 5 studies, 1310 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mobility at four months was reported using different measures (such as the number of people with independent mobility or scores on a mobility scale); findings were not consistent between these measures and we could not be certain of the evidence for this outcome. We were also uncertain of the findings for performance in ADL at four months; we did not pool the data from four studies because of substantial heterogeneity. We found no data for health-related quality of life at four months. Using a cephalomedullary nail in preference to an extramedullary device saves one superficial infection per 303 patients (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 35 studies, 5087 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and leads to fewer non-unions (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96; 40 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the risk of intraoperative implant-related fractures was greater with cephalomedullary nails (RR 2.94, 95% CI 1.65 to 5.24; 35 studies, 4872 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), as was the risk of later fractures (RR 3.62, 95% CI 2.07 to 6.33; 46 studies, 7021 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Cephalomedullary nails caused one additional implant-related fracture per 67 participants. We noted no evidence of a difference in other adverse events related or unrelated to the implant, fracture or both. Subgroup analyses provided no evidence of differences between the length of cephalomedullary nail used, the stability of the fracture, or between newer and older designs of cephalomedullary nail. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Extramedullary devices, most commonly the sliding hip screw, yield very similar functional outcomes to cephalomedullary devices in the management of extracapsular fragility hip fractures. There is a reduced risk of infection and non-union with cephalomedullary nails, however there is an increased risk of implant-related fracture that is not attenuated with newer designs. Few studies considered patient-relevant outcomes such as performance of activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, mobility, or delirium. This emphasises the need to include the core outcome set for hip fracture in future RCTs.

Surgical interventions for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising. The majority of extracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of extracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and five other databases in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included internal and external fixation, arthroplasties and non-operative treatment. We excluded studies of hip fractures with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 184 studies (160 RCTs and 24 quasi-RCTs) with 26,073 participants with 26,086 extracapsular hip fractures in the review. The mean age in most studies ranged from 60 to 93 years, and 69% were women. After discussion with clinical experts, we selected nine nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: fixed angle plate (dynamic and static), cephalomedullary nail (short and long), condylocephalic nail, external fixation, hemiarthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty (THA) and non-operative treatment. Seventy-three studies (with 11,126 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA. We selected the dynamic fixed angle plate as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison.  We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias, and because some of the estimates included the possibility of transitivity owing to the proportion of stable and unstable fractures between treatment comparisons. We also downgraded if we noted evidence of inconsistency in direct or indirect estimates from which the network estimate was derived. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision.  Overall, 20.2% of participants who received the reference treatment had died by 12 months after surgery. We noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at this time point between the treatments compared. Effect estimates of all treatments included plausible benefits as well as harms. Short cephalomedullary nails had the narrowest confidence interval (CI), with 7 fewer deaths (26 fewer to 15 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07). THA had the widest CI, with 62 fewer deaths (177 fewer to 610 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.03). The certainty of the evidence for all treatments was low to very low. Although we ranked the treatments, this ranking should be interpreted cautiously because of the imprecision in all the network estimates for these treatments. Overall, 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment had unplanned return to theatre. Compared to this treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence that 58 more participants (14 to 137 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a static fixed angle plate (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.50), and 91 more participants (37 to 182 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if treated with a condylocephalic nail (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.95 to 5.68). We also found that these treatments were ranked as having the highest probability of unplanned return to theatre. In the remaining treatments, we noted no evidence of any differences in unplanned return to theatre, with effect estimates including benefits as well as harms. The certainty of the evidence for these other treatments ranged from low to very low. We did not use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for early mortality, but our findings were similar to those for 12-month mortality, with no evidence of any differences in treatments when compared to dynamic fixed angle plate. Very few studies reported HRQoL and we were unable to build networks from these studies and perform network meta-analysis.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Across the networks, we found that there was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, static implants such as condylocephalic nails and static fixed angle plates did yield a higher risk of unplanned return to theatre. We had insufficient evidence to determine the effects of any treatments on HRQoL, and this review includes data for only two outcomes. More detailed pairwise comparisons of some of the included treatments are reported in other Cochrane Reviews in this series. Short cephalomedullary nails versus dynamic fixed angle plates contributed the most evidence to each network, and our findings indicate that there may be no difference between these treatments. These data included people with both stable and unstable extracapsular fractures. At this time, there are too few studies to draw any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of arthroplasty or external fixation for extracapsular fracture in older adults. Future research could focus on the benefits and harms of arthroplasty interventions compared with internal fixation using a dynamic implant.

Hip fracture specialists facilitate low-dose spinal anaesthesia in fractured neck of femur surgery.

Fractured neck of femur is a common but potentially devastating complication of frailty. In other surgical specialities, there is an inverse relationship between surgical experience and duration of surgery; however, this has not been quantified in hip trauma. In perioperative hip fracture care, prolonged surgery may be associated with increased morbidity and significantly impacts on the conduct of anaesthesia. Specifically, low-dose spinal anaesthesia, which is associated with improved haemodynamic stability, cannot be used if surgery is likely to be prolonged. We studied the duration of hip fracture surgery undertaken in our institution and compared this to surgical expertise. We retrospectively explored our theatre database to identify patients who underwent hip fracture surgery in our hospital over a 62-month period, recording duration of surgery and primary operating surgeon. Surgeons were classified into one of 3 groups: Consultant hip surgeon (specialist interest in hip surgery), Consultant orthopaedic surgeon but non-hip specialist, or Non-consultant (trainee or non-training grade). We identified 1426 hip fracture procedures. Consultant hip surgeons performed all types of hip fracture surgery faster, and with reduced variation in surgical duration, than did either non-hip specialist consultants or non-consultant grades. Consultant hip surgeons consistently performed hip fracture surgery in under 60 minutes. Specialist consultant hip surgeons make low-dose spinal anaesthesia (with shorter block duration but increased haemodynamic stability) feasible. Our data supports the development of dedicated hip fracture trauma lists where patients should be operated on by specialist hip surgeons or trainees directly under their supervision.

Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Hip Fractures: A Cochrane Review.

BACKGROUND: This review focuses on the use of peripheral nerve blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia, or as a supplement to general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery and tries to determine if they offer any benefit in terms of pain on movement at 30 minutes after block placement, acute confusional state, myocardial infarction/ischemia, pneumonia, mortality, time to first mobilization, and cost of analgesic. METHODS: Trials were identified by computerized searches of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to 2016 August week 1), Embase (Ovid SP, 1988 to 2016 August week 1), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCO, 1982 to 2016 August week 1), trials registers, and reference lists of relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials involving the use of nerve blocks as part of the care for hip fractures in adults aged 16 years and older were included. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted the data. The quality of evidence was judged according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations Working Group scale. RESULTS: Based on 8 trials with 373 participants, peripheral nerve blocks reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement: standardized mean difference, -1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.14 to -0.67; equivalent to -3.4 on a scale from 0 to 10; I statistic = 90%; high quality of evidence). The effect size was proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used (P < .00001). Based on 7 trials with 676 participants, no difference was found in the risk of acute confusional state: risk ratio, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.38-1.27; I statistic = 48%; very low quality of evidence). Based on 3 trials with 131 participants, the risk for pneumonia was decreased: risk ratio, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.89; I statistic = 3%; number needed-to-treat for additional beneficial outcome, 7 [95% CI, 5-72]; moderate quality of evidence). No difference was found for the risk of myocardial ischemia or death within 6 months but the number of participants included was well below the optimum information size for these 2 outcomes. Based on 2 trials with 155 participants, peripheral nerve blocks also reduced the time to first mobilization after surgery: mean difference, -11.25 hours (95% CI, -14.34 to -8.15 hours; I statistic = 52%; moderate quality of evidence). From 1 trial with 75 participants, the cost of analgesic drugs when used as a single-shot block was lower: standardized mean difference, -3.48 (95% CI, -4.23 to -2.74; moderate quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that regional blockade reduces pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement. There is moderate quality of evidence for a decreased risk of pneumonia, reduced time to first mobilization, and reduced cost of analgesic regimen (single-shot blocks).

Peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures.

BACKGROUND: Various nerve blocks with local anaesthetic agents have been used to reduce pain after hip fracture and subsequent surgery. This review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009 and 2017. OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on the use of peripheral nerves blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia or as a supplement to general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. We undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards. SEARCH METHODS: For the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to August week 1 2016), Embase (Ovid SP, 1988 to 2016 August week 1) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to August week 1 2016), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving use of nerve blocks as part of the care provided for adults aged 16 years and older with hip fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed new trials for inclusion, determined trial quality using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE Working Group approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 trials (1760 participants; 897 randomized to peripheral nerve blocks and 863 to no regional blockade). Results of eight trials with 373 participants show that peripheral nerve blocks reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.14 to -0.67; equivalent to -3.4 on a scale from 0 to 10; I2 = 90%; high quality of evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P < 0.00001). Based on seven trials with 676 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; I2 = 48%; very low quality of evidence). Three trials with 131 participants reported decreased risk for pneumonia (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; I2 = 3%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in risk of myocardial ischaemia or death within six months, but the number of participants included was well below the optimal information size for these two outcomes. Two trials with 155 participants reported that peripheral nerve blocks also reduced time to first mobilization after surgery (mean difference -11.25 hours, 95% CI -14.34 to -8.15 hours; I2 = 52%; moderate quality of evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated that the cost of analgesic drugs was lower when they were given as a single shot block (SMD -3.48, 95% CI -4.23 to -2.74; moderate quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-quality evidence shows that regional blockade reduces pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement. Moderate-quality evidence shows reduced risk for pneumonia, decreased time to first mobilization and cost reduction of the analgesic regimen (single shot blocks).

Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people with hip fracture are treated surgically, requiring anaesthesia. OBJECTIVES: The main focus of this review is the comparison of regional versus general anaesthesia for hip (proximal femoral) fracture repair in adults. We did not consider supplementary regional blocks in this review as they have been studied in another review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 2003 to March 2014) and EMBASE (Ovid SP, 2003 to March 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials comparing different methods of anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. The primary focus of this review was the comparison of regional anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia. The use of nerve blocks preoperatively or in conjunction with general anaesthesia is evaluated in another review. The main outcomes were mortality, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, acute confusional state, deep vein thrombosis and return of patient to their own home. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We analysed data with fixed-effect (I(2) < 25%) or random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence according to the criteria developed by the GRADE working group. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 31 studies (with 3231 participants) in our review. Of those 31 studies, 28 (2976 participants) provided data for the meta-analyses. For the 28 studies, 24 were used for the comparison of neuraxial block versus general anaesthesia. Based on 11 studies that included 2152 participants, we did not find a difference between the two anaesthetic techniques for mortality at one month: risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.06; I(2) = 24% (fixed-effect model). Based on six studies that included 761 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of pneumonia: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.31; I(2) = 0%. Based on four studies that included 559 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.65; I(2) = 0%. Based on six studies that included 729 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of cerebrovascular accident: RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.83; I(2) = 0%. Based on six studies that included 624 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of acute confusional state: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.40; I(2) = 49%. Based on laboratory tests, the risk of deep vein thrombosis was decreased when no specific precautions or just early mobilization was used: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.78; I(2) = 0%; (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 3, 95% CI 2 to 7, based on a basal risk of 76%) but not when low molecular weight heparin was administered: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.84; I(2) for heterogeneity between the two subgroups = 58%. For neuraxial blocks compared to general anaesthesia, we rated the quality of evidence as very low for mortality (at 0 to 30 days), pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, acute confusional state, decreased rate of deep venous thrombosis in the absence of potent thromboprophylaxis, and return of patient to their own home. The number of studies comparing other anaesthetic techniques was limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a difference between the two techniques, except for deep venous thrombosis in the absence of potent thromboprophylaxis. The studies included a wide variety of clinical practices. The number of participants included in the review is insufficient to eliminate a difference between the two techniques in the majority of outcomes studied. Therefore, large randomized trials reflecting actual clinical practice are required before drawing final conclusions.

Occurrence, management and outcomes of hip fractures in patients with Parkinson's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures can be debilitating, especially in patients with pre-existing Parkinson's disease; they have reportedly worse outcomes than non-Parkinson's disease patients. SOURCES OF DATA: A computerized literature search on PubMed, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL, supplemented by a manual search of related publications. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Parkinson's disease patients were found to have significantly lower bone mineral density; higher incidence of falls and hip fractures; delays to receiving their Parkinson's disease medication and surgery; higher risk of pneumonia, urinary infection, pressure sores, post-operative mortality; surgical complications and sequelae, including failed fixation, dislocation, longer hospital stay, re-operation; and increased risk of contralateral hip fracture. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Regain of mobility and return to previous residential status have been variably reported. GROWING POINTS: All Parkinson's disease patients should be screened and considered for primary prevention treatment. On admission with hip fractures, attention should be paid to avoid delays to medication, ensuring safe anaesthetic and timely surgery, and post-operative chest physiotherapy and mobilization. RESEARCH: Research is needed in minimizing the bone-resorptive effects of anti-Parkinson's disease medication.

Intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Intramedullary nails may be used for the surgical fixation of extracapsular hip fractures in adults. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different designs of intramedullary nails for treating extracapsular hip fractures in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (6 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to November Week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (3 January 2014), EMBASE (1988 to 2014, Week 1) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (accessed January 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing different types, or design modifications, of intramedullary nails in the treatment of extracapsular hip fractures in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed limited meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight new trials, testing seven new comparisons in this update. Overall, we included 17 trials, testing 12 comparisons of different cephalocondylic nail designs. The trials involved a total of 2130 adults (predominantly female and older people) with mainly unstable trochanteric fractures.All trials were at unclear risk of bias for most domains, with the majority at high risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. The three quasi-randomised trials were at high risk for selection bias.Four trials (910 participants) compared the proximal femoral nail (PFN) with the Gamma nail. There was no significant difference between the two implants in functional outcome (the very low quality evidence being limited to results from single trials), mortality (low quality evidence: 86/415 versus 80/415; risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.41), serious fixation complications (operative fracture of the femur, cut-out, non-union and later fracture of the femur) nor re-operations (low quality evidence: 45/455 versus 36/455; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.90).Two trials (185 participants) provided very low quality evidence of a lack of clinically significant difference in outcome (functional score, mortality, fracture fixation complications and re-operation) between the ACE trochanteric nail and the Gamma nail.Two trials (200 participants) provided very low quality evidence of a lack of significant difference in outcome (mobility score, pain, fracture fixation complications or re-operations) between the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) nail and the Gamma 3 nail.Seven of the nine trials evaluating different comparisons provided very low quality evidence of a lack of significant between-group differences in all of the reported main outcomes for the following comparisons: ACE trochanteric nail versus Gamma 3 nail (112 participants); gliding nail versus Gamma nail (80 participants); Russell-Taylor Recon nail versus long Gamma nail (34 participants, all under 50 years); proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) nail versus Targon PF nail (80 participants); dynamically versus statically locked intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) nail (81 participants); sliding versus non-sliding Gamma 3 nail (80 participants, all under 60 years); and long versus standard PFNA nails (40 participants with reverse oblique fractures).The other two single comparison trials also provided very low quality evidence of a lack of significant between-group differences in all of the main outcomes with single exceptions. The trial (215 participants) comparing the ENDOVIS nail versus the IMHS nail found low quality evidence of poorer mobility in the ENDOVIS nail group, where more participants in this group were bedridden after their operation (29/105 versus 18/110; RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.85; P = 0.05). The trial (113 participants) comparing the InterTan nail versus the PFNA II nail found very low quality evidence that more PFNA II group participants experienced thigh pain (3/47 versus 12/46; RR: 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.81). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence from the randomised trials undertaken to date is insufficient to determine whether there are important differences in outcome between different designs of intramedullary nails used in treating extracapsular hip fractures. Given the evidence of superiority of the sliding hip screw compared with intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures, further studies comparing different designs of intramedullary nails are not a priority. Any new design should be evaluated in a randomised comparison with the sliding hip screw.

Extramedullary fixation implants and external fixators for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Extramedullary fixation of hip fractures involves the application of a plate and screws to the lateral side of the proximal femur. In external fixators, the stabilising component is held outside the thigh by pins or screws driven into the bone. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998, and last updated in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects of different types of extramedullary fixation implant, as well as external fixators, for treating extracapsular proximal femoral (hip) fractures in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to June Week 4 2011), EMBASE (1988 to 2011 Week 25), various other databases, conference proceedings and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extramedullary implants or external fixators for fixing extracapsular hip fracture in adults were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were pooled where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: The 18 included trials tested seven comparisons in a total of 2615 mainly female and older participants with a total of 2619 fractures. All trials had methodological flaws that may affect the validity of their results.Three trials of 355 participants comparing a fixed nail plate (Jewett or McLaughlin) with the sliding hip screw (SHS) found an increased risk of fixation failure for fixed nail plates.The two trials of 433 participants comparing the Resistance Augmented Bateaux (RAB) plate with the SHS had contrasting results, notably in terms of operative complications, fixation failure and anatomical restoration.One trial of 100 participants comparing the Pugh nail and the SHS found no significant difference between implants.Three trials of 458 participants compared the Medoff plate with the SHS. There was a trend to higher blood losses and longer operation times for the Medoff plate along with a trend to a lower risk of fixation failure with the Medoff plate for unstable trochanteric fractures.Two trials of 676 participants compared the Medoff plate with three different screw-plate systems. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome for trochanteric fractures. For subtrochanteric fractures, there was a lower fixation failure rate for the Medoff plate but no evidence for differences in longer-term outcomes.Four trials of 396 participants comparing the Gotfried percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) with a SHS found a trend to lower blood loss and transfusion requirements for the PCCP but no other confirmed differences in outcomes between implants. Three of the trials reported intra-operative problems with the PCCP, some of which precluded its use.Three trials of 200 participants comparing external fixation with a SHS found less operative trauma for the external fixation. Final outcome appeared similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The markedly increased fixation failure rate of fixed nail plates compared with the SHS is a major consideration and thus the SHS appears preferable.There was insufficient evidence from other comparisons of extramedullary implants or on the use of external fixators to draw definite conclusions.

A long term follow-up for a randomised trial of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures.

104 patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture were randomised to surgical treatment with either a cemented hemiarthroplasty or a cemented total hip arthroplasty. All surviving patients were followed up for five years from injury by a blinded observer. No differences in outcome between groups was seen for the degree of residual pain or regain of function or independence. There was a tendency to more complications and re-operations for those treated with the total hip arthroplasty. We continue to recommend that caution should be exercised regarding the increased promotion of THR for intracapsular hip fractures until further studies with long term follow up are completed.

What is the outcome after a Girdlestone resection arthroplasty following a hip fracture?

BACKGROUND: Joint infections or the complications of hip surgery may necessitate a Girdlestone resection arthroplasty. This is often kept as a last resort for patients with significant co-morbidities or when other treatments have been ineffective. The aim of this study was to define the outcome after Girdlestone excision arthroplasty when undertaken as a primary or secondary procedure for a hip fracture. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database involving 36 patients who underwent a Girdlestone procedure over a 30-year period. It compares the outcome for the 19 patients who survived to 1 year with those of 38 matched hip fracture patients. RESULTS: Pain persisted in most patients after the procedure and was universal in those patients who could walk. Most patients experienced a significant loss of independence and a reduction in mobility status: 12/19 (63.1%) of those who survived to 1 year were immobile and of the remainder, all needed a Zimmer frame to walk. Overall, 41.7% of patients had died within 1 year of undergoing the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that Girdlestone resection arthroplasty after a hip fracture is associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality and therefore, should only be used as a salvage procedure after all other surgical measures have been exhausted.

Mortality following hip fracture: Trends and geographical variations over the last SIXTY years.

INTRODUCTION: The management of hip fractures has advanced on all aspects from prevention pre-operatively, specialised hip fracture units, early operative intervention and rehabilitation. This is in line with the appropriate recognition over the past years of an important presentation with significant mortality and socioeconomic consequences of ever increasing incidence in an aging population. It is therefore imperative to continue to gather data on the incidence and trends of hip fractures to guide future management planning of this important presentation. METHODS: A review of all articles published on the outcome after hip fracture over a twenty year period (1999-2018) was undertaken to determine any changes that had occurred in the demographics and mortality over this period. This article complements and expands upon the findings of a previous article by the authors assessing a four decade period (1959 - 1998) and attempts to present trends and geographical variations over sixty years. RESULTS: The mean age of patients sustaining hip fractures continues to be steadily increasing at approximately just over 1 year of age for every 5-year time period. The mean age of patients sustaining hip fractures increased from 73 years (1960s) to 81 years (2000s) to 82 years (2010s). Over the six decade period one-year mortality has reduced from an overall mean of 27% (1960s) to 20% (2010s). The proportion of female hip fractures has decreased from 84% (1960s) to 70% (2010s). There is a decreasing trend in the proportion of intracapsular fractures from 54% (1970s) to 49% (2000s) and 48% (2010s). CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that significant progress has been made with preventative planning, medical management, specialised orthogeriatric units and surgical urgency all playing a role in the improvements in mean age of hip fracture incidence and reduction in mortality rates. While geographical variations do still exist there has been an increase in the study of hip fractures globally with results now being published from more widespread institutions indicating appropriate increased attention and commitment to an ever-increasing presentation.

Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip.

Aims: The aim of this study was to report the three-year follow-up for a series of 400 patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip, who were randomized to be treated with either a cemented polished tapered hemiarthroplasty or an uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated hemiarthroplasty. Methods: The mean age of the patients was 85 years (58 to 102) and 273 (68%) were female. Follow-up was undertaken by a nurse who was blinded to the hemiarthroplasty that was used, at intervals for up to three years from surgery. The short-term follow-up of these patients at a mean of one year has previously been reported. Results: A total of 210 patients (52.5%) died within three years of surgery. One patient was lost to follow-up. Recovery of mobility was initially significantly better in those treated with a cemented hemiarthroplasty, although by three years after surgery this difference became statistically insignificant. The mortality was significantly lower in those treated with a cemented hemiarthroplasty (p = 0.029). There was no significant difference in pain scores, or in the incidence of implant-related complications or revision surgery, between the two groups. Conclusion: These results further support the use of a cemented hemiarthroplasty for the routine management of elderly patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip.

Pre-operative traction for hip fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Following a hip fracture, traction may be applied to the injured limb before surgery. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1997, and previously updated in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of traction applied to the injured limb prior to surgery for a fractured hip. Different methods of applying traction (skin or skeletal) were considered. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (April 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1948 to April week 2 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 2011 week 16), and CINAHL (1982 to 1 April 2011), conference proceedings, trials registries and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing either skin or skeletal traction with no traction, or skin with skeletal traction for patients with an acute hip fracture prior to surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from all trialists. Wherever appropriate and possible, data were pooled. MAIN RESULTS: One new trial was included in this update. In all, 11 trials (six were randomised and five were quasi-randomised), involving a total of 1654 predominantly elderly patients with hip fractures, are included in the review. Most trials were at risk of bias, particularly that resulting from inadequate allocation concealment, lack of assessor blinding and incomplete outcome assessment. Only very limited data pooling was possible.Ten trials compared predominantly skin traction with no traction. The available data provided no evidence of benefit from traction either in the relief of pain (pain soon after immobilisation (visual analogue score 0: none to 10: worst pain): mean difference 0.11, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.50; 3 trials), ease of fracture reduction or quality of fracture reduction at time of surgery. There were inconclusive data for pressures sores and other complications, including fracture fixation failure. Three minor adverse effects (sensory disturbance and skin blisters) related to skin traction were reported.One of the above trials included both skin and skeletal traction groups. This trial and one other compared skeletal traction with skin traction and found no important differences between these two methods, although the initial application of skeletal traction was noted as being more painful and more costly. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the evidence available, the routine use of traction (either skin or skeletal) prior to surgery for a hip fracture does not appear to have any benefit. However, the evidence is also insufficient to rule out the potential advantages for traction, in particular for specific fracture types, or to confirm additional complications due to traction use.Given the increasing lack of evidence for the use of pre-operative traction, the onus should now be on clinicians who persist in using pre-operative traction to either stop using it or to use it only in the context of a well-designed randomised controlled trial.

Does the place of fall influence the time to specialist treatment in patients sustaining hip fractures? A study of 4917 patients falling in four different settings.

Delay to treatment is a multifactorial issue for patients sustaining hip fractures. The place of fall could possibly impact on the time to specialist care. We aimed to investigate the correlation between the place where a hip fracture occurs, and the time to initiation of specialist fracture-specific treatment. We retrospectively analysed data that had been collected on 4917 consecutive hip fracture admissions to our unit. The recorded places of fall were divided into four groups, including those falling 'outside home', 'at home', 'residential or nursing home', and 'hospital inpatients' respectively. A 24-hour scale was used to record times of fall and of initiation of treatment. The latter was the time of admission to Accident & Emergency for groups 1-3, and the time of referral to the Orthopaedic team for group 4.23.5% patients fell outside their own home (group 1), and presented at only 2 hours post-injury. Patients in both group 2 (47.7%) and group 3 (23.6%) presented after 3 hours. Group 4 (4.9%) patients had to wait a median of 8 hours being referred to the Orthopaedic team. We found an interesting correlation between the place of injury and the delay in receiving treatment, in that those patients already receiving maximal healthcare attention, had to wait the longest to be referred to specialist care.

Hip fractures in cyclist - a six-year cohort study at a single large volume trauma centre.

Cycling has gained in popularity as a recreational activity and method or travel, in part due to its recognised health benefits in maintenance of good cardiovascular strength and also for environmental issues. As a consequence of this, there is unfortunately an increased number of cycling related injuries. One particular injury incurred is a proximal femoral fracture, but there is little information in the literature with regarding this and its management. This retrospective, single centre, observation study looks at the number of cycling injuries over a six-year period in those under the age of 80. 50 patients were identified at an occurrence of 4.5% of the hip fracture population. The majority were male (n=37, 74%) with an average age of 60. Operative treatment was used for 48 (96%) patients with the majority being treated with internal fixation (n=42, 84%) and arthroplasty for the remainder. Average hospital stay was 5.6 days. One patient continued to complain of pain and subsequently underwent a total hip arthroplasty. The mean follow up for these patients was 1033 days (range 1 year to 7 years). 47 (94%) had full return back to pre-injury levels. Given that cycling is likely to increase in the future, we recommend that early surgical fixation is a viable and functionally positive treatment management in these particular group of patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective observational study over a six-year period was to assess the incidence of hip fractures in those under the age of 80 following a cycling related injury, the definitive management and primary index surgery opted and to report the radiological and functional outcome of these patients with at least 1 year of follow up. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study SETTING: Large hip fracture unit, Level 2 Trauma Centre, single centre. PATIENTS: Patients under the age of 80 who sustained a proximal femoral fracture secondary to a fall and not attributable to pathological processes (namely malignancy and Paget's) were identified and followed up after 1 year. RESULTS: 50 patients were identified over a six-year period of which 74% (n=37) were male and the remaining were female. 48 of these patients subsequently went on for operative management. Two patients presented late (7 days and 42 days from surgery) and were treated conservatively. The average hospital stay for these patients was 5.6 days, with index surgery occurring on average within 22 hours of admission. Mean follow up was 1033 days (range 1 year to 7 years) in all patients. Radiological union had occurred in all patients. One patient showed evidence of avascular necrosis but was asymptomatic. All but three patients had achieved the same level of mobility as pre-injury levels. All patients had the same level of social dependency. One patient continued to complain of pain and subsequently underwent a total hip arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that the majority of our patients undergo surgical fixation and demonstrate good functional and radiological outcomes at a mean follow up of 1033 days. This is likely as a result of good pre-morbid status in these patients and good bone stock at index intervention. This study is one of the first to show this within the literature in this cohort of elderly patients. The number of cycling related injuries in the elderly population is likely to increase and our recommendation is that early surgical fixation provides good functional outcome in this subset of patients.

The efficacy of intravenous tranexamic acid administration at induction in definitive hip fracture surgery: Is there a role?

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a cheap and powerful drug that has several uses in surgery and is well established in elective orthopaedic surgery. At present, limited small studies have looked into its role in the acute hip fracture. Transfusion in the geriatric population presents risks and increased costs to healthcare systems around the world. Our retrospective study looks at the role of TXA administration at induction for both intracapsular fracture requiring hemiarthroplasty and our preferred method of fixation of extracapsular fracture by intramedullary nail (IM nail). We show a statistically significant reduction in the number of patients requiring transfusion as well as mean haemoglobin (Hb) drop in those undergoing hemiarthroplasty. This was not replicated in those undergoing IM nail fixation. Both groups showed no increase in 1-year mortality or thromboembolic events following TXA administration. These results support the use of TXA for hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular hip fractures over the age of 60. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this pre and post interventional study looks at the effects of intravenous administration of tranexamic acid on induction for elderly patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty or intramedullary nail fixation for hip fractures. DESIGN: Pre and post interventional, randomised observational study SETTING: Large hip fracture unit, Level 2 Trauma Centre, single centre PATIENTS: Two arms of the study looking at those aged above the age of 60 undergoing hemiarthroplasty and intramedullary nail fixation without and with tranexamic acid on induction. RESULTS: 12.1% of hemiarthroplasties required post-operative transfusion without tranexamic acid compared to 2.6% of those with tranexamic acid (n=15 vs n=3 respectively, p=0.006). Equally, the mean Hb drop in g/L is reduced in those with tranexamic acid compared to those without (mean Hb = 14.6 vs 17.7 respectively, p=0.034). This was not replicated in the IM nail group between those without and those with tranexamic acid (n=31 vs n=20 respectively, p= 0.16). The mean Hb drop in g/L was not statistically significant in the tranexamic acid arm compared to without (mean Hb = 19.2 vs mean Hb = 21.9, p=0.11). Gross reporting of thromboembolic events did not demonstrate an increase in the number of those with DVT, PE, MI or stroke. 1-year mortality was not statistically significant in either hemiarthroplasty or IM nail fixation following tranexamic acid administration. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid both statistically significantly reduces the number of patients requiring transfusion post hemiarthroplasty and also the value of mean Hb drop without appearing to increase in thromboembolic events or 1 year mortality rates. This does not appear to be emulated in the IM nail fixation although both thrombotic events and 1-year mortality rates are also not affected by administration of TXA. We propose that TXA has a role in hemiarthroplasty surgery in reducing post-operative transfusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3 - retrospective cohort study.

Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Two types of implants used for the surgical fixation of extracapsular hip fractures are cephalocondylic intramedullary nails, which are inserted into the femoral canal proximally to distally across the fracture, and extramedullary implants (e.g. the sliding hip screw). OBJECTIVES: To compare cephalocondylic intramedullary nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (April 2010), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010), EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 13), and other sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing cephalocondylic nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Wherever appropriate, results were pooled. MAIN RESULTS: We included 43 trials containing predominantly older people with mainly trochanteric fractures. Twenty-two trials (3749 participants) compared the Gamma nail with the sliding hip screw (SHS). The Gamma nail was associated with increased risk of operative and later fracture of the femur and increased reoperation rate. There were no major differences between implants in wound infection, mortality or medical complications.Five trials (623 participants) compared the intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) with the SHS. Fracture fixation complications were more common in the IMHS group. Results for post-operative complications, mortality and functional outcomes were similar in both groups.Three trials (394 participants) showed no difference in fracture fixation complications, reoperation, wound infection and length of hospital stay for proximal femoral nail (PFN) versus the SHS.None of the 10 trials (1491 participants) of other nail versus extramedullary implant comparisons for trochanteric fractures provided sufficient evidence to establish definite differences between the implants under test.Two trials (65 participants) found intramedullary nails were associated with fewer fracture fixation complications than fixed nail plates for unstable fractures at the level of the lesser trochanter.Two trials (124 participants) found a tendency to less fracture healing complications with the intramedullary nails compared with fixed nail plates for subtrochanteric fractures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With its lower complication rate in comparison with intramedullary nails, and absence of functional outcome data to the contrary, the SHS appears superior for trochanteric fractures. Further studies are required to confirm whether more recently developed designs of intramedullary nail avoid the complications of previous nails. Intramedullary nails may have advantages over fixed angle plates for subtrochanteric and some unstable trochanteric fractures, but further studies are required.

Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Numerous types of arthroplasties may be used in the surgical treatment of a hip fracture (proximal femoral fracture). The main differences between the implants are in the design of the stems, whether the stem is cemented or uncemented, whether a second articulating joint is included within the prosthesis (bipolar prosthesis), or whether a partial (hemiarthroplasty) or total whole hip replacement is used. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomised controlled trials comparing different arthroplasties for the treatment of hip fractures in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (September 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registers (all to September 2009), and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different arthroplasties and their insertion with or without cement, for the treatment of hip fractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, by use of a 10-item checklist, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials involving 2861 older and mainly female patients with proximal femoral fractures are included. Cemented prostheses, when compared with uncemented prostheses (6 trials, 899 participants) were associated with a less pain at a year or later and improved mobility. No significant difference in surgical complications was found. One trial of 220 participants compared a hydroxyapatite coated hemiarthroplasty with a cemented prosthesis and reported no notable differences between the two prosthesis. Comparison of unipolar hemiarthroplasty with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (7 trials, 857 participants, 863 fractures) showed no significant differences between the two types of implant. Seven trials involving 734 participants compared hemiarthroplasty with a total hip replacement (THR). Most studies involved cemented implants. Dislocation of the prosthesis was more common with the THR but there was a general trend within these studies to better functional outcome scores for those treated with the THR. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence that cementing the prostheses in place will reduce post-operative pain and lead to better mobility. From the trials to date there is no evidence of any difference in outcome between bipolar and unipolar prosthesis. There is some evidence that a total hip replacement leads to better functional outcome than a hemiarthroplasty. Further well-conducted randomised trials are required.