Arthroplasty for unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures may offer a lower re-operation rate as compared to cephalomedullary nailing.

PURPOSE: Cephalomedullary (CM) nailing is widely used for the treatment of pertrochanteric hip fractures. Fixation failures with CM nailing tend to occur in unstable fracture patterns often necessitating revision surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the complications and clinical outcomes of primary arthroplasty to CM nailing for the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures. METHODS: We conducted an age-, sex-, and fracture type-matched case-controlled study and identified 29 patients who underwent hip arthroplasty for an unstable pertrochanteric fracture (AO/OTA classification type 31A2.2/3 and 31.A3) at our institution. Their outcome was compared to a matched control group of 29 patients treated with a CM nail. RESULTS: There was one major complication in the arthroplasty group (3.4 %), whereas there were six major complications in the nailing group (20.7 %) (P = 0.04). We found no significant difference between the groups with regards to blood loss, operative time, hospitalization time and the number of patients discharged to rehabilitation. Clinical outcome measured with Oxford hip score and SF-12 at the time of final follow-up was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroplasty is a viable option for treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures in an elderly population. Arthroplasty may offer a lower re-operation rate in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures as compared to CM nailing.

Closed suction drainage has no benefits in revision total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Several studies have failed to show significant benefits of closed suction drainage (CSD) in routine primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, blood loss, haematoma formation and wound complications are generally much greater in revision THA as compared to primary THA. The purpose of this study was to determine if CSD is beneficial for revision THA patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial at our institution between July 2013 and July 2014. Eighty-eight patients undergoing revision THA were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive a CSD (n = 44) or to not receive a CSD (n = 44). All first-stage revision surgeries for infection were excluded. Primary outcomes were haemoglobin loss and number of patients transfused. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome evaluated with Harris hip score (HHS), pain evaluated with visual analogue scale (VAS), and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: There were significantly more patients in the CSD group that required blood transfusions (20/44 as compared to 11/44, p = 0.04). Patients in the no CSD group were discharged earlier than patients in the CSD group (4.3 days as compared to 5.4 days, p = 0.002). No statistical significant difference was found in the HHS or pain VAS between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not demonstrate any benefit with the use of CSD for revision THA with regard to wound related complications, infection or early functional outcome. Post-operative blood loss, transfusion rate, and length of hospital stay may be higher with CSD.

The focally constrained liner is a reasonable option for revision of unstable total hip arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Revision surgery for a patient with previous recurrent dislocations or abductor muscle dysfunction has been considered to be a complication-prone procedure regardless of the type of constrained implant used. We investigated the survivorship of a focally constrained acetabular liner used for revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with abductor insufficiency or previous recurrent dislocations. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 98 patients in whom a focally constrained acetabular liner was used to treat abductor insufficiency or previous recurrent dislocations. The mean age was 69.4 years (37-92) and 64 of these were females. Previously, the patients had undergone a mean of two (1-5) revisions. The mean follow-up was 38 (12-66) months. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated and Log-rank test was used to test the difference in survivorship between patients with abductor insufficiency and previous dislocations. RESULTS: Sixteen patients needed a further re-revision for any cause. Thus, the revision-free survivorship was 84.3 % at five years. Five patients suffered a dislocation with a mean of five months post-operatively and were managed with repeat revision. Five patients failed at the implant-host bone interface. Three of these failures occurred after cementing the constrained liner into a pre-existing shell. CONCLUSIONS: The focally constrained liner provided a reasonable option for revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with hip instability. Failures were observed in patients with acetabular osteolysis but seemingly well-fixed component and unrecognized impingement.

Arthroplasty for Pertrochanteric Hip Fractures.

The mainstay of treatment of pertrochanteric fractures is internal fixation using a sliding hip screw or a cephalomedullary device. However, in patients with ipsilateral hip osteoarthritis or avascular necrosis of the femoral head, or inflammatory arthritis, arthroplasty should be considered as the primary treatment modality to reduce the likelihood of a secondary procedure. Unstable fracture patterns with concomitant poor bone quality represent a challenge for internal fixation, with high rates of lag screw cut-out and hardware failure. Prosthetic replacement for unstable pertrochanteric fractures has therefore been considered as an alternative primary treatment option. Further prospective randomized trials are required.

Complications following conversion of a hip hemiarthroplasty to a total hip arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Conversion of hip hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty (CTHA) is a complication-prone procedure with high dislocation rates and early component loosening. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the complications of CTHA performed using contemporary implants. METHODS: Forty-six patients who had CTHA were retrospectively matched to a control group of 46 patients who had a first-time THA revision. The mean follow-up was 47 (range 6-149) and 23 (range 6-139) months for CTHA and control groups, respectively. Radiographs taken at the last follow-up visit were evaluated for signs of loosening or other modes of failure. Clinical outcome was evaluated with the Harris Hip Score (HHS). RESULTS: Complications occurred in five patients (10.9 %) in the CTHA group, and all required repeat revision. Two patients (4.3 %) were revised due to recurrent dislocation. The other re-revisions were done for acetabular or femoral component loosening and deep infection. In the control group, complications occurred in six patients (13.0 %), and three (6.5 %) were revised with a constrained liner due to recurrent dislocations. CONCLUSIONS: Dislocation rates and re-revision for CTHA were not significantly different than those of first-time THA revision when using contemporary revision implants.

Periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures following knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical comparison of four methods of fixation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the biomechanical properties of four fixation options for periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures. METHODS: Fourth-generation composite femurs were implanted with a posterior-stabilizing femoral component of total knee arthroplasty. All femurs were osteotomized to produce a AO/OTA 33-A3 fracture pattern and four different constructs were tested: (1) non-locking plate; (2) polyaxial locking plate; (3) intramedullary fibular strut allograft with polyaxial locking plate; (4) retrograde intramedullary nail. The composite femurs underwent non-destructive tests to determine construct stiffness in axial and torsional cyclic loading. The final testing consisted of quasi-static axial loading until failure. RESULTS: Under cyclic torsional loading, the retrograde intramedullary nail was less stiff than non-locking plate, polyaxial locking plate and intramedullary fibular strut allograft with polyaxial locking plate (p = 0.046). No differences were detected in cyclic axial loading between the different constructs. During quasi-static axial loading to failure, the intramedullary nail achieved the highest axial stiffness while the non-locking plate showed the lowest (p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: The intramedullary fibular strut allograft with polyaxial locking plate did not prove to be significantly better to the polyaxial locking plate only in a periprosthetic distal femur fracture model.