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.

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.

Short (175 mm) versus standard (220 mm) length intramedullary nail for trochanteric hip fractures: a randomized trial of 229 patients.

AIMS: A lack of supporting clinical studies have been published to determine the ideal length of intramedullary nail in fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. Nevertheless, there has been a trend to use shorter intramedullary nails for the internal fixation of trochanteric hip fractures. Our aim was to determine if the length of nail affected the outcome. METHODS: We randomized 229 patients with a trochanteric hip fracture between two implants: a 'standard' nail of 220 mm and a shorter nail of 175 mm, which had decreased proximal angulation (4° vs 7°) and a reduced diameter at the level of the lesser trochanter. Patients were followed up for one year by a nurse blinded to the type of implant used to determine if there were differences in mobility and pain with two nail designs. Pain was assessed on a scale of 1 (none) to 8 (severe and constant) and mobility on a scale of 1 (full mobility) to 9 (immobile). RESULTS: The shorter nail did not require any reaming of the femur and was quicker to insert (mean difference 5.1 minutes; p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference 3.16 to 7.04). Those treated by the shorter nail were less mobile (mean difference in reduction in mobility score at one year 0.80; p = 0.007, 95% CI 1.38 to 0.22). In addition, there was a trend toward greater residual pain for those treated with the shorter nail, although this was not statistically significant (mean difference in pain score at one year 0.24; p = 0.064, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.49). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the increasing use of this very short intramedullary nail with its design modification may not be appropriate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):394-399.

Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip: a randomized trial of 400 patients.

AIMS: Debate continues about whether it is better to use a cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty to treat a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip. The aim of this study was to attempt to resolve this issue for contemporary prostheses. METHODS: A total of 400 patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip were randomized to receive either a cemented polished tapered stem hemiarthroplasty or an uncemented Furlong hydroxyapatite-coated hemiarthroplasty. Follow-up was conducted by a nurse blinded to the implant at set intervals for up to one year from surgery. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients died in the year after surgery. There was a tendency towards a slightly higher mortality in those treated with the uncemented prosthesis after one year (64 vs 51; p = 0.18). For the survivors, there was no significant difference in pain score at any of the time intervals. Patients treated using the cemented hemiarthroplasty recovered mobility better than those treated with the uncemented hemiarthroplasty (mean decrease in mobility score at one year: 1.7 vs 1.1, SD 1.9; p = 0.008). There was a tendency to more periprosthetic fractures in the uncemented group (five vs two cases; p = 0.45), but overall the need for further surgery was similar in both groups (nine vs seven cases). There were four perioperative deaths in the cemented group. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that a contemporary cemented hemiarthroplasty gives better results than an uncemented hemiarthroplasty for patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip. When the condition of the patient permits, a cemented hemiarthroplasty should be used. Cite this article: Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(1):11-16.

Treatment of the displaced intracapsular fracture for the 'fitter' elderly patients: A randomised trial of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for 105 patients.

Controversy exists for the optimum method of surgical treatment for the 'fitter' elderly patient with a displaced intracapsular fracture. 105 patients were randomised to treatment with either a cemented polished tapered stem hemiarthroplasty or a cemented total hip arthroplasty (THR) with a cemented acetabular cup. All patients were followed up for a minimum of one year using a blinded assessment of functional outcome. Those patients treated with a THR had a tendency to a longer hospital stay and increased medical (12 versus 62) and surgical complications (4 versus 2) in comparison to those treated by hemiarthroplasty. Mean operative times (842 versus 52 min) and operative blood loss (335mls versus 244mls) were increased for THR. Final outcome measures of residual pain and regain of function were similar for both methods of treatment. We recommend that caution should be exercised regarding the increased promotion of THR for intracapsular hip fractures until further studies are completed.