Post-operative complications following total hip arthroplasty for trauma: A multicentre cohort study comparing dual mobility with conventional acetabular bearings.

Aims: Dislocation of a total hip replacement is a serious complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dislocation rates are higher when surgery is performed following trauma. Our study compares post-operative dislocation rates between conventional acetabular bearing (CAB) and dual mobility acetabular bearing (DMB) THA performed for neck of femur fracture alongside post-operative periprosthetic fracture, revision and mortality. Methods: A retrospective multicentre cohort study at 9 hospital trusts in the United Kingdom of all THA performed for neck of femur fracture between March 2018 and February 2019. Results: A total of 295 operations were performed. 64% (189) were CAB and 36% (106) were DMB. Average age was 75 years (38-98). 223 Female: 72 Male. The follow-up period was an average of 42 months (36-48). Overall revision rate was 1.6%,8 peri-prosthetic fracture rate was 6 (2%) and overall mortality was 9.8% (29) with no significant difference between cohorts for any outcome. The posterior approach (PA) was favoured 82% (242) vs the lateral approach (LA) 18% (53) with the PA used more often in patients undergoing DMB 96% (102) vs CAB 74% (140) p = 0.001. Patients approached posteriorly at the time of their index procedure were significantly less likely to sustain a simple dislocation following a DMB 0 (0%) vs. CAB 8 (5.7%) p = 0.015. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the risk of dislocation following THA for trauma is more than four times higher than when conventional bearings are used compared to dual mobility acetabular components. This effect is most pronounced when the PA is utilised for the index procedure. The use of these bearings does not impact mortality, peri-prosthetic fracture or revision rate. We would encourage the use of dual mobility acetabular bearings in patients undergoing THA for fracture via a PA.

Platelet-rich plasma: a narrative review.

The aim of this article was to synopsize platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use in musculoskeletal pathologies through evidence-based assessment of the preparation, classification, mechanism of action and applications of PRP, thereby answering which PRP type is best for each clinical indication.The literature search was performed using Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews databases for papers containing the key terms "platelet-rich plasma" AND "orthopaedics" AND ("classification" OR "mechanism of action" OR "preparation" OR "clinical application"). Generated papers were evaluated for pertinence in following areas: preparation, classification, mechanism of action, clinical application within orthopaedics. Non-English papers were excluded. Included studies were evaluated for quality.Sixty studies were included in our review. There are many commercial PRP preparation kits with differing component concentrations. There is no consensus on optimal component concentrations. Multiple PRP classifications exist but none have been validated. Platelet-rich plasma acts via growth factors (GFs) released from α-granules within platelets. Growth factors have been shown to be beneficial in healing. Grossly elevated concentrations of GFs may have inhibitory effects on healing. Multiple systematic reviews show efficacy of PRP in tendinopathies, early osteoarthritis, acute muscle injuries and in combination with rotator cuff repair and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.The literature suggests leukocyte-rich PRP (L-PRP) is more beneficial in tendinopathies and pure PRP (P-PRP) is more beneficial in cartilage pathology. However, different PRP preparations have not been directly compared in any pathology. Classification of PRP type is frequently not stated in research. Standardization of PRP research parameters is needed to streamline findings and generate clear indications for PRP types to yield maximum clinical benefit. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:225-235. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200017.

Wear rate and medium-term survival of a cemented, moderately cross-linked polyethylene acetabular prosthesis.

INTRODUCTION: The moderately cross-linked Depuy Marathon® cemented acetabular component was introduced into the UK in 2007. The wear rate for the previously introduced Marathon® uncemented acetabular component has been reported to range from 0.06 to 0.01 mm/year. The aim of this study was to present the medium-term results and wear rate of the Marathon® cemented prosthesis used in primary total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: 103 Marathon® cemented acetabular components were implanted between 2008 and 2009 in primary arthroplasty, who were eligible for this study. All patients received a metal 28-mm head. Mean age was 68 years (range 27-87). Mean clinical follow-up was 55 months (range 50-61). Mean radiological follow-up was 46 months (range 24-57). Wear was calculated on AP radiographs using computer-assisted uni-radiographic technique. RESULTS: The mean wear was 0.37 mm (range 0.0-0.78 mm). The wear rate was calculated as 0.03 mm/year (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.06). Postoperative complications included deep vein thrombosis (2%) and dislocation (0.8%); there were no deep infections. There were no revisions for failure of the Marathon® cemented acetabular component. CONCLUSIONS: The Marathon® cemented acetabular component demonstrates satisfactory wear rates and survivorship at medium-term follow-up.

Preoperative optimisation of anaemia for primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The 2009 NHS Blood and Transplant national comparative audit on blood use following primary total hip arthroplasty (THR) highlighted that preoperative anaemia was common and undertreated. They recommended that hospitals have a written policy for treating anaemia preoperatively. In our centre, we found that preoperative optimisation of anaemia, significantly reduced blood transfusion rate to <5%. The 2015 national audit showed that even though 48% of patients received tranexamic acid, 85% of patients required transfusion. By conducting a systematic review of literature on blood management for preoperative anaemia in primary THR; we aimed to validate the recommendations of the national audit and increase its awareness in the orthopaedic community. METHODS: A PubMed Search was performed to identify suitable literature limited to randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses and systematic reviews involving primary THR. We excluded any THRs performed for trauma and revision arthroplasty. Our exclusion criteria for the intervention was the use of autologous methods such as cell salvage techniques and preoperative autologous blood donation. RESULTS: Analysis of 13 publications showed widespread study heterogeneity, which precluded meta-analysis. Preoperative blood management (PBM) interventions included the use of recombinant human erythropoietin and oral iron supplementation in 12/13 and 11/13 studies respectively. There were significant differences in transfusion rates between PBM and control groups in 12/13 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The findings overwhelmingly support preoperative optimisation of anaemia. The main barrier to wider implementation remains the cost effectiveness. We recommend using our validated protocol, which has shown to significantly reduce transfusion rates, length of stay and remain cost effective.