Does Surgical Approach Influence Complication Rate of Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures? A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Femoral neck fractures are an epidemiologically significant issue with major effects on patients and health care systems, as they account for a large percentage of bone injuries in the elderly. Hip hemiarthroplasty is a common surgical procedure in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures. Several surgical approaches may be used to access the hip joint in case of femoral neck fractures, each with its own benefits and potential drawbacks, but none of them has consistently been found to be superior to the others. This article aims to systematically review and compare the different approaches in terms of the complication rate at the last follow-up. Methods: an in-depth search on PubMed/Scopus/Web of Science databases and a cross-referencing search was carried out concerning the articles comparing different approaches in hemiarthroplasty and reporting detailed data. Results: A total of 97,576 hips were included: 1030 treated with a direct anterior approach, 4131 with an anterolateral approach, 59,110 with a direct lateral approach, and 33,007 with a posterolateral approach. Comparing the different approaches, significant differences were found in both the overall complication rate and the rate of revision surgery performed (p < 0.05). In particular, the posterolateral approach showed a significantly higher complication rate than the lateral approach (8.4% vs. 3.2%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the dislocation rate in the posterolateral group was significantly higher than in the other three groups considered (p < 0.026). However, the posterolateral group showed less blood loss than the anterolateral group (p < 0.001), a lower intraoperative fractures rate than the direct anterior group (p < 0.035), and shorter mean operative time than the direct lateral group (p < 0.018). Conclusions: The posterolateral approach showed a higher complication rate than direct lateral approach and a higher prosthetic dislocation rate than the other three types of surgical approaches. On the other hand, patients treated with posterolateral approach showed better outcomes in other parameters considered, such as mean operative time, mean blood loss and intraoperative fractures rate. The knowledge of the limitations of each approach and the most common associated complications can lead to choosing a surgical technique based on the patient's individual risk.

Megaprosthesis in Non-Oncologic Settings-A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Modular megaprostheses (MPs) are commonly used after bone-tumor resection, but they can offer a limb salvage solution in massive bone defects. The aim of this systematic review of the Literature is to provide a comprehensive data collection concerning the use of MPs in non-oncologic cases, and to provide an overview of this topic, especially from an epidemiologic point of view. Three different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant articles, and further references were obtained by cross-referencing. Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on cases of MP in non-oncologic cases. A total of 2598 MPs were retrieved. Among these, 1353 (52.1%) were distal femur MPs, 941 (36.2%) were proximal femur MPs, 29 (1.4%) were proximal tibia MPs and 259 (10.0%) were total femur MPs. Megaprostheses were most commonly used to treat periprosthetic fractures (1158 cases, 44.6%), in particular in the distal femur (859, 74.2%). Overall, complications were observed in 513 cases (19.7%). Type I (soft tissue failures) and type IV (infection) according to the Henderson classification were the most frequent (158 and 213, respectively). In conclusion, patients with severe post-traumatic deformities and/or significant bone loss who have had previous septic complications should be considered as oncologic patients, not because of the disease, but because of the limited therapeutic options available. The benefits of this treatment include relatively short operative times and immediate weight-bearing, thus making MP particularly attractive in the lower limb.

Anatomical and reverse megaprosthesis in proximal humerus reconstructions after oncologic resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: Anatomic (AN) Endoprosthesis (EPR) reconstructions of the shoulder after intra-articular proximal humerus (Malawer type 1) resections are characterized by early recovery and low complications rate. However, shoulder instability and limited mobility can occur. Reverse shoulder (RS) EPR has been introduced to improve functional outcome. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate shoulder reconstructions with AN or RS EPR after Malawer type 1 resection, comparing complications and functional results. METHODS: Through an electronic systematic search of PubMed, articles concerning EPR after shoulder Malawer type 1 resections were reviewed. Complications rate, range of motion (ROM) and functional outcome (Musculoskeletal Society Tumor Society-MSTS score) of AN and RS EPR were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. A similar complication rate was observed between AN and RS EPR rate (26.4% and 22.4%, respectively, p = 0.37). Soft tissue failure was the most frequent complication and cause of revision in both groups. Mean post-operative flexion and abduction ROM and MSTS scores were significantly higher in RS EPR, particularly among patients with preserved deltoid function (p = 0.013, p = 0.025 and p = 0.005, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic and reverse shoulder EPR represent safe and effective implants for shoulder reconstruction, with similar implant stability and complication rates. RS EPR significantly improves post-operative ROM and functional outcomes, especially when at least a partial function of the abductor apparatus is preserved.