Cementing a collarless polished tapered femoral stem through the anterior approach : evaluation of cement mantle quality and component alignment.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to radiologically evaluate the quality of cement mantle and alignment achieved with a polished tapered cemented femoral stem inserted through the anterior approach and compared with the posterior approach. METHODS: A comparative retrospective study of 115 consecutive hybrid total hip arthroplasties or cemented hemiarthroplasties in 110 patients, performed through anterior (n = 58) or posterior approach (n = 57) using a collarless polished taper-slip femoral stem, was conducted. Cement mantle quality and thickness were assessed in both planes. Radiological outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were identified between groups in Barrack grade on the anteroposterior (AP) (p = 0.640) or lateral views (p = 0.306), or for alignment on the AP (p = 0.603) or lateral views (p = 0.254). An adequate cement mantle (Barrack A or B) was achieved in 77.6% (anterior group, n = 45) and in 86% (posterior group, n = 49), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed factors associated with unsatisfactory cement mantle (Barrack C or D) included higher BMI, left side, and Dorr Type C morphology. A mean cement mantle thickness of ≥ 2 mm was achieved in all Gruen zones for both approaches. The mean cement mantle was thicker in zone 7 (p < 0.001) and thinner in zone 9 for the anterior approach (p = 0.032). Incidence of cement mantle defects between groups was similar (6.9% (n = 4) vs 8.8% (n = 5), respectively; p = 0.489). CONCLUSION: An adequate cement mantle and good alignment can be achieved using a collarless polished tapered femoral component inserted through the anterior approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):46-52.

Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty After Acetabular Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in the Elderly-Acute vs Delayed Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Optimum management for the elderly acetabular fracture remains undefined. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in this population does not allow early weight-bearing and has an increased risk of failure. This study aimed to define outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the setting of an acetabular fracture and compared delayed THA after acetabular ORIF (ORIF delayed THA) and acute fixation and THA (ORIF acute THA). METHODS: All acetabular fractures in patients older than 60 years who underwent ORIF between 2007 and 2018 were reviewed (n = 85). Of those, 14 underwent ORIF only initially and required subsequent THA (ORIF delayed THA). Twelve underwent an acute THA at the time of the ORIF (ORIF acute THA). The ORIF acute THA group was older (81 ± 7 vs 76 ± 8; P < .01) but had no other demographic- or injury-related differences compared with the ORIF delayed THA group. Outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, complications, radiographic assessments (component orientation, leg-length discrepancy, heterotopic ossification), and functional outcomes using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS). RESULTS: Operative time (P = .1) and length of stay (P = .5) for the initial surgical procedure (ORIF only or ORIF THA) were not different between groups. Four patients had a complication and required further surgeries; no difference was seen between groups. Radiographic assessments were similar between groups. The ORIF acute THA group had a significantly better OHS (40.1 ± 3.9) than the ORIF delayed THA group (33.6 ± 8.5) (P = .03). CONCLUSION: In elderly acetabulum fractures, ORIF acute THA compared favorably (a better OHS, single operation/hospital visit, equivalent complications) with ORIF delayed THA. We would thus recommend that in patients with risk factors for failure requiring delayed THA (eg, dome or roof impaction) that ORIF acute THA be strongly considered.