The surgical approach for hemiarthroplasty does not influence patient-reported outcome : a national survey of 2118 patients with one-year follow-up.

AIMS: Hemiarthroplasty of the hip is usually carried out through either a direct lateral or posterior approach. The aim of this prospective observational study was to determine any differences in patient-reported outcomes between the two surgical approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register we identified patients of 70 years and above who were recorded as having had a hemiarthroplasty during 2009. Only patients who had been treated with modern prostheses were included. A questionnaire was posted to those who remained alive one year after surgery. A total of 2118 patients (78% of those available) with a mean age of 85 years (70 to 102) returned the questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients who had undergone surgery through a posterior approach reported a higher health-related quality of life (HRQoL, EQ-5D mean 0.52 versus 0.47, p = 0.009), less pain (visual analogue scale mean 17 versus 19, p = 0.02) and greater satisfaction with the result of surgery (visual analogue scale mean 22 versus 24, p = 0.02) than those who had a direct lateral approach. However, after adjusting for age, gender, cognitive impairment and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, no association was found between surgical approach and HRQoL, residual pain or patient satisfaction. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: The surgical approach for hemiarthroplasty does not seem to affect the patient-perceived HRQoL, residual pain or patient satisfaction one year after surgery on elderly patients. The choice of approach should be based on other factors, such as the risk of dislocation.

Hip arthroplasty for the treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients.

UNLABELLED: This review summarises the evidence for the treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients. Results from randomised clinical trials and national register studies are presented when available. The advantages of arthroplasty compared with internal fixation are supported by several studies. A number of studies contribute to the discussions of total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus hemiarthroplasty and unipolar versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty, but no clear-cut evidence-based recommendation can be made. THA may be particularly advantageous for active, lucid patients with a relatively long life expectancy. For patients who are physiologically older, hemiarthoplasty is probably satisfactory, and for the oldest patients with more comorbidities, unipolar implants are considered to be sufficient. If the hospital can support emergency THA surgery in sufficient numbers and quality, there may be few patients who warrant bipolar hemiarthroplasty. The direct lateral approach reduces the risk of dislocation compared with the posterior approach. Cemented implants lower the risk of periprosthetic fracture and its subsequent morbidity and mortality. As the risk of peri-operative death related to bone cement can be reduced by adequate measures, cemented implants are recommended in fracture cases. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: There remains a great variation in the surgical management of patients with a hip fracture, and an evidence-based approach should improve the outcomes for this vulnerable patient group.

Long-term follow-up of replacement compared with internal fixation for displaced femoral neck fractures: results at ten years in a randomised study of 450 patients.

In a series of 450 patients over 70 years of age with displaced fractures of the femoral neck sustained between 1995 and 1997 treatment was randomised either to internal fixation or replacement. Depending on age and level of activity the latter was either a total hip replacement or a hemiarthroplasty. Patients who were confused or bed-ridden were excluded, as were those with rheumatoid arthritis. At ten years there were 99 failures (45.6%) after internal fixation compared with 17 (8.8%) after replacement. The rate of mortality was high at 75% at ten years, and was the same in both groups at all times. Patient-reported pain and function were similar in both groups at five and ten years. Those with successfully healed fractures had more hip pain and reduction of mobility at four months compared with patients with an uncomplicated replacement, and they never attained a better outcome than the latter patients regarding pain or function. Primary replacement gave reliable long-term results in patients with a displaced fracture of the femoral neck.

Outcome after primary and secondary replacement for subcapital fracture of the hip in 10 264 patients.

Between 1999 and 2005, 10 264 patients who had undergone total hip replacement (THR) for subcapital fracture of the hip were compared with 76 520 in whom THR had been performed for other reasons. All the cases were identified through the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. The THRs performed as primary treatment for fracture were also compared with those done after failure of internal fixation. After seven years the rate of revision was higher in THR after fracture (4.4% vs 2.9%). Dislocation and periprosthetic fracture were the most common causes of revision. The risk was higher in men than in women. The type of femoral component and the surgical approach influenced the risk. After correction for gender, type of component and the surgical approach the revision rates were similar in the primary and secondary fracture THR groups. Total hip replacement is therefore a safe method for both the primary and secondary management of fracture of the hip.